West Papua: Indonesian Transmigration Program Further Marginalises the Indigenous Population. November. 2014. (This article argues that the demographics at the time it had been written may have already swayed too far against the local population).*

https://unpo.org/article/17676

 Indonesian Colonisation, Resource Plunder and West Papuan Grievances. 2019

  https://apjjf.org/2011/9/12/David-Adam-Stott/3499/article.html

  Papuan tribes fear sacrifice of sago forests that stave off hunger . Reuters. August. 2020.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indonesia-forests-palmoil-indigenous-idUSKCN25G067

https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/talking-indonesia-papua-food-and-racism/_______

Incidental Notes (which mostly can be found on the Long Draft webpage).

FOOTNOTE. Further comment on West Papua as well as Timor Leste in relation mainly to the intertwining of colonial policy and extractive industries.

  The actuality was that Papuans were militarily intimidated by Indonesia thus they had no real choice when after the Dutch nominally let go of their administration of 'West New Guinea' in 1963 after intermediary negotiations with Indonesia were set up by the United States. JFK wanted to return to favour with Indonesia which it was feared was drifting towards the Soviet camp especially when during the Eisenhower era the CIA provided material support of an outer islands rebellion against Jakarta. Arthur Dulles who led the CIA at the time of this rebellion - which interestingly enough came about because of a perceived lack of equitable distribution of both economic and political benefits with the new regime being so Java orientated - it was hoped by Dulles that the rebellion would succeed just enough so there would be a general destabilisation which would lead to the ousting of Sukarno who as a non-aligned nationalist was not readily compliant to U.S. interests in the Cold War. (Interestingly enough one has read that there were two competing visions in the U.S. administration whereby Arthur Dulles believed in maintaining U.S. hegemony through a security principle which called for supporting authoritarian regimes; while JFK wanted to work with the Third World by initiating a developmental program approach to build up its strategic position...yet even if this is the case it does seem to me that JFK was still willing to 'hand over' West Papua to Indonesia if need be although to be fair if he lived JFK it would have been interesting to see what he would have thought of the virtual annexation of West Papua by Indonesia which so clearly went against the will of Papuans).There was also deep US concern that the Indonesian Communist Party's (PKI) ever growing strength was not being seriously challenged and its strong presence would surely prove to provide fertile ground for the Soviet Union to do some further 'strategic gardening' of its own in in South East Asia. As it was the Dutch hoped that West Papua would eventually become an independent state by 1972 which would serve its own interest of maintaining its long centuries standing economic posture in the former East Indies especially when it had gold deposits that would turn out to bring about the largest gold mine in the world. As it was when Suharto came to power he would allow the U.S mining company Freeport to access this so called 'El Dorado' which clearly signalled Indonesia's shift to align with the 'Free World' under the welcoming stewardship of the United States. Much wealth would come from this mine but little of it would go directly to West Papua and worse what was 'given' to local communities was an array of environmental disasters while employment at the mine targeted mainly the transmigrants coming into this occupied province.  

  Papuans would have known how marginalised they could become in their own country so in the eventual vote to decide their own future they would certainly not have freely chosen to take on a new colonial master.  

  As it is it is hoped that there can be a new referendum so West Papuans can choose to be independent. The high numbers of Indonesian transmigrants who may still see their 'first loyalty' to Indonesia as a whole may make that result more difficult to achieve which is what suits Jakarta in case an independence vote was held; yet that would partly result on international pressure which is not exactly forthcoming because global strategic interests are well served by having Indonesia effectively maintain itself as a singular regional entity. 

 One line of critical argument may go that all diverse 'national aspirations' within Indonesia need to be 'down played' for it to stay strong and preferably - especially for that powerful political and corporate section of an international audience that wants Indonesia to maintain its present status quo - by stage managing these internal actors in a way that they can be appeased without the need to resort to state violence - which is better diplomatically for world-wide optics - but when killings occur and receive a public airing they can be ideologically framed in a way whereby those who are liquidated can themselves be seen dismissively by the state as 'fringe extremists' in a national security-apologist framework whereby such state murders can also 'understandably' be viewed as a 'regrettable' 'defence measure' against what has 'to be recognised' is that in the 'long term' there is the 'hope' that 'democratic' reform which are still presently a 'work-in-progress' will with sufficient 'good intent' will 'finally' 'take root' in civil society so as to make any ongoing 'antiquated' secessionist impulse not only impotent and unnecessary but even unpopular to the many local indigenous who are supposedly meant to see the nationalist paternalism being forcefully thrust upon them and wholly against their will is actually for 'their good' which is also for the good of the 'whole nation'.  To publicly inculcate a 'progressive' belief that 'full democracy' is what Indonesia 'truly' aspires too can help spuriously facilitate an international neighbour such as Australia to maintain its intolerable position that 'bad' state behaviour within West Papua is simply a 'passing feature' - due also to cultural 'misunderstandings' - rather than an integral aspect of ongoing knowable colonial internal rule. To play devil's advocate as a partial counterbalance it should be said that there have been outright killings by West Papuan insurgents of both civilians and military personnel and every such human rights violation should also be independently investigated and it deemed appropriate with justice in turn judicially meted out in a court of law as should also be the case when the Indonesian military also commit atrocities. Yet under colonial rule the law is invariably always weighted towards the colonist and so while the state will readily denounce acts of violence committed by its opponents and in a region which endures military occupation a structural 'moral correction' should also be made by the state to also be readily forthcoming in bringing to justice all of those of its 'own kind' who have caused and who keep predominantly 'energising' a ruthless cycle of violence which from the human rights reports one has read are proportionally initiated more so by the military; which in turn has brought on 'revenge killings' etcetera from those associated with the victims by which more innocent life is also lost. As it is I have been reminded during such readings of the frontier violence so prevalent in nineteenth and early twentieth century Australia where whites as well as blacks were killed but which such widespread violence was first brought into horrific existence by the forced takeover of lands by an occupier who 'naturally' saw the original inhabitants as inferior beings who could 'justly' to be exterminated 'if need be' if they deliberately chose to 'savagely' oppose the occupation of 'empty lands' by the 'right-thinking' pioneers of 'modern civilisation'. 

 One has also read that the claims of genocide in West Papua have been exaggerated in order to pull the heart-strings - as well as perhaps the purse-strings - of 'naive' independence activist supporters in the West (interestingly others in the West also state that the claims of genocide occurring against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang province by the Chinese Communist Party - CCP - government are also exaggerated). Although the actual numbers of lives lost may be debated there is enough evidence based reportage to suggest that there is without dispute a very serious human rights situation in what was once also known as Irian Jaya and it must also be remembered that genocide can also include not only by way of outright mass biological death but also by any state effort to suppress cultural identity itself - which can be argued is the case in West Papua (as also is the case in Xinjiang and Tibet). 

  An acute example of this aspect in the internationally accepted legal definition of genocide is the Stolen Generations in Australia. Half caste children were taken from their mothers with the view that along with becoming unpaid domestic labour they would also eventually assimilate with Anglo Australians so the Aboriginal race will 'naturally' die out thus 'resolving' the Aboriginal issue (and presumably as well any possible associated problems relating to land tenure in the future...) once and for all. In West Papua along with national emblems such as the West Papua flag being made illegal there is a worry that with Indonesian transmigration that local identity and culture will also be wholly eliminated over time or at the very least be so marginalised as to parallel what happened to dispossessed First Nations peoples in Australia after 1788. In Australia it is clear that colonial law still works disproportionately against indigenous peoples with high rates of incarceration still occurring to this day along with high rates of deaths in custody. It is said there are second generation Indonesians born in Papua who are identifying themselves as Papuan and one hopes this will be an increasingly social development yet as is the case in Australia there are many who identify themselves as 'Australian' but psychologically still feel a strong cultural link to England and so believe in maintaining a constitutional loyalty to the Crown. (As yet another aside what one may also like to keep in mind while there are also many Australians who prefer to have a republic with an Australian head of state one wonders how many would agree to the idea that perhaps a First Australian of indigenous heritage should lead the country...to perhaps sublimely usurp the whole colonial project...? ).      

  Although Australia would lead INTERFET to come to the military rescue of Timor Leste's terrorized citizens it should be known that in Bernard Collaery's Oil Under Troubled Water. Australia's Timor Sea Intrigue. (2020) it was actually a reluctant move as Australia did not want to upset Indonesia and it was actually Clinton that suggested a military intervention on behalf of the East Timorese. Australia suggested the United States carry out the operation but this was rebuffed as Australia should take responsibility. I've seen it lately suggested that the United States was asked to 'help' Australia as if to infer that it had always been Australia's intention to militarily help Timor Leste yet from what I have read it seems more the case that the US call was a circuit breaker in overcoming Australian government paralysis to act on Timor Leste as well as give impetus to President Habibe to pushback on his own security forces who did not want Timor Leste to become independent in case it started a domino effect to embolden other separatist movements such as in Aceh and West Papua. (Actually from what I have read I think General Wiranto was especially told by the United States that the deterioration was unacceptable and no longer to be tolerated). From the United States point of view Australia as a main regional player should be involved to initiate the humanitarian intervention and it was not a case of the US 'abandoning' Australia but rather was 'motivating' it to do the right thing. It should be noted that although Australian diplomatic behaviour comes across as questionable there has only been appreciation from the Timor Leste population for the military assistance provided by INTERFET. An international case of a humanitarian military intervention actually being that. Historical truth does matter on one's point of view which can be further discussed the other day whilst the historical dimension one wants to focus on is how Australian motivation in its foreign policy in Timor Leste was based on resource acquisition and not on any principled stand for human rights. Australia wanted to deal solely with Indonesia rather than with ain independent Timor Leste whereby this former Portuguese colony would have a greater moral right as well as geographical international legality to the share of oil underwater resources off its shores. The same immoral, unseemingly 'business real politik attitude Australia had to Timor Leste can also be said about West Papua where Australian mining has also profited and where maintaining an 'onside' relationship with Indonesia remains paramount as a 'first principle' strategic regional goal. It also displays the one-dimensional inclination of a  'mono diplomatic culture'  whereby it is simply seen as 'simpler' to deal with 'one nation' rather than with the reality that there are many peoples in the region which all deserve their own national representation but it does not suit the 'greater powers' in the region in much the same way that greater agricultural powers prefer to suppress biological ecological systems in the interest of profiting from the 'easier managing of immense monoculture cash crops such as palm oil which is also not even a local plant being brought in historically from West Africa). Australian foreign policy had diplomatically betrayed a people who had lost at least 10,000 lives when helping Australian commandoes while the island was occupied by the Japanese military during WWII. It is seen as a moral travesty by all right thinking Australians including the surviving grateful veterans who fought in Timor Leste that basically nothing was done to help the cause of the East Timorese people during the long decades of an equally ruthless Indonesian occupation. Guaranteeing access to oil and gas reserves in the waters between Timor Leste and Australia were seen as far important to Australia and dealing directly with Indonesia rather than an independent Timor Leste was seen as the best way to achieve this economic gain. What is startling is that when independence was achieved an LNP Australian government was actually hopeful to negotiate with the hardline authoritarian Marxist faction of Timor Leste's Fretilin rather than with Xanano Gusmao of FALANTIL who was the popular ex-guerilla leader and who had been imprisoned by the Indonesians and who truly democratically had the best interest of all East Timorese at heart. Xanano Gusmao during the time of the resistance against the Indonesians had broken away from Fretilin due partly to the ideological inflexible intransigence of its authoritarian leadership; (for the LNP democratic principles went to the wayside when it came to realising corporate-orientated goals...market freedom not democratic freedom...). It should be noted that just before the invasion of East Timor in 1975 there was a civil war in the country and so nothing is monolithic and one should also mention that five Australian sponsored journalists were deliberately killed by Indonesian militia at Balibo (one more would later be killed in Dili) which the Australian government has never really been forward enough to seek out justice for all these men; they have obscenely become 'sacrificial lambs' for the diplomatic expediencies of both Australia and Indonesia. Yet one should not be too surprised as one recently heard the celebrated Australian lawyer Geoffrey Robertson recently remark in drafts of the Australian version of the Magnitsky Act that there was an ideological flaw in it whereby foreign policy is mentioned but not human rights; as if to say foreign policy was more important especially when that foreign policy was aligned to U.S. interests as if that would be best for Australian interests.  

 Regional stability to assure long term predictability can come at the expense of human and environmental rights is too often seen as an 'acceptable' price to pay to assure business investment and the economic 'benefits' it supposedly to the nation (when in actuality much wealth goes mainly to investors) is realised. Yet, the bitter irony is by being duplicitous towards Timor Leste Australia may have actually now weakened its defence posture as regional mistrust towards a parochial Australia has only been accentuated when it needs to be strengthened if the fear of possible hostilities from further north are ever actually realised and strong regional alliances are needed both on a practical as well as strategic level.