UN Scandals in West Papua History
By Sem Karoba (PDP Facilitator for Europe) – skaroba@yahoo.com 

The United Nations was incapable and in fact failed to Prevent, and at some points deliberately allowed the Violations against UN Charter, UN Declaration of Human Rights and Other International Laws. The UN is legally accountable for its past mistakes on West Papua history that had put Papuans into serious violations of human rights and degradation of human dignity and integrity in the past 39 years.

No	Action Taken/ What Happened	Legal Cases for Consideration	
I.	The New York Agreement (NYA), signed by the Netherlands and Indonesia on 15 August 1962 totally ignored the rights of Papuan people by excluding West Papuan representatives as subject to the Agreement

Violation against the UN Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UNGA resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 to effectively promote human rights. What Kofi A. Annan said: “Human Rights are foreign to no culture and native to all nations; they are universal. One cannot pick and choose among Human Rights; whether civil, cultural, economic, political, or social. Human Rights are indivisible and interdependent. And as this century’s bloody history has taught us, the absence of Human Rights is more than a denial of Human Dignity; it is also the root of the poverty and political violence that plague our world.” (Kofi A. Annan, 1998)
No single West Papuan or our representative council was consulted in drafting and signing of the:
a.	NYA of 15 August 1962.
b.	Rome Agreement of 30 September 1962, nor
c.	UN Resolution 2504 (XVI) of 14 November 1969.	1.	UN Charter 1945, articles 1 “To develop kindly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and to take appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.”
2.	UN Charter 1945 Article 73 (a) and (b): “(a) Members of the UN which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-determination recognise the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount of international peace and security obligation to promote the utmost within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories and to this end: (a) to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses. (b) to develop self-government to take due account of political aspirations of the peoples and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying state of advancement.”
3.	UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”
4.	UN Charter on Human Rights, Article 7: “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.”
5.	UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 15: “1. Everyone has the right to a nationality; 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.” 
6.	UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 19: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” and
7.	UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 20: “1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; 2. No one may be compelled to belong to an association.”	
II.	1	The method of the Act of Free Choice based on “one man – one vote” was deviated into an Indonesian method of “musyawarah” without any consent of the UN, but the UN was incapable of enforcing international standards of practice in such a self-determination
2	No single member of the legitimate and official representative of Papuans at that time was involved. The members of Papua Council (Nieuw Guinea Raad) were democratically elected on December 1, 1961, and legally as well as officially approved by the Netherlands but the Council of its member (s) were involved or consulted in deciding the method of the Act of Free Choice (AFC).	1.	Article 7 of the UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: “All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, noon-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.”
2.	Violated the International standard of practice or the democratic principles of “one person – one vote.” This has undermined the democratic principles based on International law and standards of practice. It has also undermined the principles stipulated in the UN Charter 1945, UN Declaration of Human Rights and other International Instruments of Law, Human Rights and Democracy.
	
III.	The Preamble of the NYA says, “Having in mind the interests of the people of the territory of West New Guinea (West Irian)…” but in reality no single person or representative body existed in West Papua during that time was consulted on the interests of the people. 
Indonesia even officially banned the Nieuw Guinea Raad as the only representative of the people of the territory on December 1, 1963.	1.	UN Charter of Human Rights, Articles 1, 7, 15, 19 and 20 as mentioned above.
2.	Article 2 of the UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: Declaration on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples: “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status …”
3.	Article 5 of the UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: “Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable hem to enjoy complete independence and freedom”.
4.	 Article 6 of the UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: “Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”
5.	Article 7 of the UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960: “All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, noon-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.”
6.	Article xiv of the NYA: "After the transfer of full administrative responsibility to Indonesia, Indonesia national laws and regulations will in principle be applicable in the territory, it being understood that they be consistent with the rights and freedom guaranteed to the inhabitants under the terms of the present agreement. New laws and regulations or amendments to the existing ones can be enacted within the spirit of the present agreement. The representative councils will be consulted as appropriate.”
7.	Article xxii of the NYA: “1. The UNTEA and Indonesia will guarantee fully the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movements and of assembly of the inhabitants of the area. …”	
IV.	The transfer of administration from the Netherlands to the United Nations Temporary Executives Authority (UNTEA) was done according to the agreement. However, the timetable for transfer from the UNTEA to Indonesia was deliberately not well defined, only 8 months, and not enough for a UN administration to prepare a territory as normal practice. This even happened 8 years prior to the actual Act of Free Choice to determine the future of West Papua. 

Indonesia as the disputing party against the Netherlands should be logically not given authority to rule in West Papua before the Act of Free Choice. This clearly shows conspiracy in the body of the United Nations itself.	1.	There has been no legal evidence or document provided to the Papuans explaining the transfer of administration from the Netherlands to UNTEA.
2.	The transfer was done according to the agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands, supported by the USA and the UN, without any consultation or consents from the Papuans whatsoever. Papuans were not involved in this transfer.
3.	According to international standards of practice, 8 months is absolutely not enough for the UNTEA to guarantee a just and democratic execution of the AFC 1969. But in fact the UN was unable to uphold this international standard of practice.
4.	By handing over the responsibility to prepare the execution of the AFC 1969, the UNTEA clearly colluded with Indonesia, the USA and the Netherlands in undermining the inalienable right of Papuans as human beings to democratically and peacefully self-determine our future.	
V.	The use of Indonesian forces during the preparation stage of the Act of Free Choice and to secure the execution of the Act clearly justifies how the UN deliberately ignored the danger of such an action. 

	1.	Article xxii of the New York Agreement” 1. The UNTEA and Indonesia will guarantee fully the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movements and of assembly of the inhabitants of the area. …”
2.	This made Article 2 of the UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 in principle very difficult to be implemented, according to the principle of “freely determine their political status.” In such a condition, of course, no one can guarantee the fulfilment of this Article when the disputing parties are in charge of the preparation towards the self-determination.	
VI.	In accordance with Article viii of the NYA, periodic reports submitted to the UN clearly indicated that there were some shifts from the actual NYA.

Dr. Fernando Ortis Sanz as the UN Secretary-General Representative to West Irian at that time repeatedly expressed his reservations on violations of the NYA, especially Article viii on the Rights of the Inhabitants as can be seen in Year Book of the UN, 1969, Vol. 23, Page 175.
	1.	Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UNGA resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.
2.	UN Resolution No. 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 totally guarantees the freedoms of all colonised territories and peoples but the UN as an institution violated this resolution by ignoring reservations expressed by the Representative of UN Secretary-General to West Papua and other countries at the UN General Assembly.
3.	This gives more indicator of the UN failure to uphold various declarations, resolutions, treaties and codes of conduct.	
VII.	The common notion of development of the people of West Irian was used many times during the negotiations. It appeared from the “Secret” Rome Agreement that the USA, Indonesia, and the Netherlands were still calling West Papua as cannibal land, undeveloped, primitive and others as pretext for allowing Indonesian occupation. The language used to give away West Papua clearly defines the reason. This was the background reason for allowing Indonesia “to develop the territory and the people” for 25 years (May 1963 – May 1988).

The 	1.	Article 3 of UN Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, which says: “Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”
2.	There is a need to further investigate the scenario and contents of the Secret Rome Agreement between the USA, Indonesia, and the Netherlands. This will show legal evidence how the Rome Agreement overridden the NYA, which was approved by the UNGA resolution 1752 (XVII) of 21 September 1962, which took note the NYA.
3.	The USE of words such as cannibal land had heavily violated human rights of Papuans as human beings. Violated basic principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by UNGA resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948.	
VIII.	1.	Note of Protest by The Freedom Committee of West Papua, dated New York, 22 September 1969 against the NYA was disregarded by the UN
2.	Various News Reports from around the world during the execution of the AFC 1969 clearly stated the Indonesian intimidation and oppression, but the UN ignored these facts.	1.	Once again the UN failed to comply to its own charter, declarations and resolutions that guarantee a just, democratic and peaceful settlement of political problems around the world.
2.	Another proof of conspiracy of the UN with parties involved in the handing over of West Papua to Indonesia. 	
IX.	Based on assessment of the implementation of Article 73 (a) and (b) of the UN Charter, Australia, Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, New Zealand, UK and the USA listed 72 colonies throughout the world formally declared by the UN as No-Self-Governing Territories, including West Papua. UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 66(I) of 14 December 1946 containing De-colonisation List.
Another UNGA Resolution A/RES/1514(XV) of December 1960 on Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples strengthened this adoption of Resolution 66(I).
But when West Papua was removed from the List, there has been no legal evidence, no UN resolution whatsoever.	1.	There is no legal basis of removing West Papua from de-colonisation list.
5.	Even in the New York Agreement, there was not single article or word clarifying the status of West Papua as non-self-governing territory being removed from the List of the UN Commission 24 on Decolonisation.
6.	However, the UN allowed Indonesia to occupy West Papua ever since.
7.	Therefore, Indonesia is occupying West Papua as a non-self-governing territory and or people until today. This violates the UN Resolution A/RES/1514(XV) of 14 December 1960 and other international laws that prohibit colonialism in our modern and civilised world societies.	
X.	The United Nations did not allow any reservations and or discussions over the outcome of the Act of Free Choice but only “took note” of the outcome.	There is no legal base as to provide us evidence on which this policy of “taking note” was implemented. Even though there were reservations from countries like Ghana as well as Sierra Leone and other countries actually expressed their reservations, but these were not taken notice by the UN Secretary General. On the contrary to the reality, 84 countries accepted the outcome, 15 remained abstain and no country refused the outcome. 	
XI.	The “Secret” Rome Agreement on September 30, 1962 (just some days after the New York Agreement on 15 August 1962) had overridden the crucial legal contents of the NYA, but it had never been published or explained to the Papuans until today. 
Countries that signed the agreement: USA, Netherlands, and Indonesia are not Papuans.	•	It is important to legally sue the agreement to be open up and seek further explanation of the agreement.
•	This secret Rome Agreement that gave the right to the Americans to exploit natural resources in West Papua. 
•	The outcome was the Contract of Work between Freeport McMoRan and Indonesia in April 1967 (two years prior to the Act of Free Choice) should be re-examined in the light of International Laws for countries and corporations. The illegal operations of Freeport McMoRan ever since have cost many lives of humans, animals and plants as well as natural resources, without any consent from the Papuans. Freeport McMoRan as the UN Political Project in West Papua should be accountable for its violations against humanity and environment.	
XII.	John Stalford concludes his paper by saying that:
2.	I would content that the first part (whether NYA was properly implemented – sic.) of this does not require an in-depth study to the subject to arrive at an accurate conclusion. A brief examination of the official November 1969 report is all that is needed to conclude that the Agreement was not fulfilled. Under its terms, the Netherlands and Indonesia and the UN had an obligation to protect the political rights and freedoms of the Papuans, and to ensure that an act of self-determination took place, in accordance with international practice. On both points, three parties failed, and they did so deliberately since the genuine Papuan self-determination was never seen as an option by any of them once the Agreement was signed.
3.	On the UN’s part of the Agreement’s implementation, it is clear that the Secretariat’s priority throughout was to ensure that West New Guinea became a recognised part of Indonesia with the minimum controversy and disruption. This was the role assigned to the organisation by the Americans in 1962, and U Thant saw no reason not to comply. It was Cold War politics, and the rights of the Papuans counted for nothing. Indeed, it would have been extraordinary if things had turned out otherwise.
4.	To conclude, the UN was an active participant in the systematic undermining of the New York Agreement, but its actions were initiated and supported by Washington, Jakarta and the Hague. In acting as they did, U Thant and the UN Secretariat allowed the UN to involve itself in a dishonest process which deliberately denied the Papuans political and human rights.	
1.	The United Nations deliberately violated UNGA Resolution A/RES/ 1514(XV) of 14 December 1960.
3.	The United Nations was in favour of Indonesian occupation in West Papua, which directly denied the rights of Papuans to self-determine their future. The United Nations also violation their social, cultural, and political rights, against the UN Declaration on Human Rights.
4.	The United Nations was incapable and even failed to protect its own declarations but then ignored this humiliating scandal of this single and the most credible organisation for human rights on earth.
5.	The use of Cold War as a reason for giving away West Papua is a case that needs further legal investigations.	
XIII	WestPaC comments on the Role of the UN that: 
•	Act of Free Choice” The term is not a legal one in the international law. The use of this term in the agreement is questionable. Its unilateral interpretation had led to the application of the Indonesia’s method of “musyawarah” which finally resulted in the so-called Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat style of self-determination through representation that had overridden international method of “one man-one vote in the 1969 Plebiscite in West Papua.

•	Musyawarah: In the light of Self-Determinatoin as stipulation by article xiv and article xviii, the adoption of this term was a direct violation against international law. The given meaning of this term is DELIBERATION means careful consideration and discussion, not consultation as defined in the agreement, which has the meaning of going to a special source of information, advice, opinion, etc. The status of all parties to a deliberation process are always equal in terms of rights, power and knowledge. In consultation, the consultant is usually in a superior position in terms of right, power and knowledge. The adoption of this term in the agreement reflected West Papua/ns as objects and not as subjects in the international law. 
•	Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat: This term literally means the “Act of Determining People’s Will” in Indonesia – a term that is not clearly defined in the International Law, and was not stipulated by the agreement. The practical adoption of this term in the so-called plebiscite had spontaneously omitted the initial applicable international method of ‘one man-one vote’” (pp.56-7)	1.	The manipulations and uses of terms imposed in the Act of Self-Determination and New York Agreement are pretty much questionable as Indonesia made them up with collusion.
2.	The shifts of methods made in the Act of Self-Determination in West Papua are questionable as they were made up with collusion by Indonesia and unlawful.
3.	In the light of law, in the names of democracy and justice, the United Nations must explain to the Papuans first. Secondly to all human beings on earth of why this failure happened and why it had ignored and or allowed further lost of many lives in West Papua ever since. Those who have lost our beloved ones have the right to demand the UN to be accountable for these all. 
4.	If we ignore this failure, collusion and conspiracy, we will give more chance for the United Nations and countries who played significant roles in the collusion and conspiracy to continue their dirty politics beyond the laws.
5.	There is a need for legal investigation over the legal basis of the use of these terms to legally justify and restore the credibility of the UN before the international community in this generation of 21st century.
6.	The UN must clarify legal basis of allowing Indonesia as a disputing country over West Papua to implement and enforce its legal and political system in West Papua 8 years before West Papua political status was determined democratically based on the International Laws. 
7.	In the case of East Timor, there were hundreds of UN observers deployed to supervise the Referendum on August 2000, for a population of about one million people with a territory about 10 times smaller than West Papua. The UN must clarify this kind of discrimination against humanity in carrying out its humanitarian missions. In West Papua not more than 50 UN Officials were deployed and even the UN officials were not allowed to get access to various parts of West Papua. This clearly cannot guarantee a just and democratic implementation of the NYA but the UN closed its eyes upon these cases.

XIV.	In the case of annexation of East Timor, the UN finally made up its mind to enforce the International law, in the case of Malaysia, the UN fully implemented all international laws, but in the case of West Papua annexation, the UN violated and failed to implement all International laws. (WestPaC, 2000. WEST PAPUA: The Case We Knew, p.35. 
UN took discriminative measures in resolving political problems during Indonesia’s Plan of Expansion and in its decolonisation history.
	•	According to Soekarno’s expansionist ambitions, he planned to annex West Papua, East Timor and Sarawak Malaysia into Indonesia, including Brunei. There were several discriminative measures taken by the UN in resolving cases related to Indonesia’s violations against International laws and human rights. The discriminative measures taken by the UN clearly violated its own resolution 
•	UN Declaration of the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, UNGA Resolution 1904 (XVIII) of 20 November 1963, especially Articles 1 “Discrimination between human beings on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin is an offence to human dignity and shall be condemned as a denial of the Charter of the United Nations, as a violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as an obstacle to friendly and peaceful relations among nations and as a fact capable of disturbing peace and security among peoples.”
•	Article 2, par. 1 of the above resolution: “No State, institution or individual shall make any discrimination in matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the treatment of persons, groups of persons or institutions on the ground of race, colour or ethnic origin.”
•	International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, UNGA Resolution 2106 A (XX) of 21 December 1965.	

Crucial Points of the Secret Rome Agreement (30 September 1962)

•	The Act of Free Choice set forth for the 1969 by the New York Agreement, to be delayed or if possible cancelled.
•	Method to be used in implementing the Act of Free Choice would be “musywarah” in accordance with the Indonesian parliamentary practice.
•	Indonesia to rule West Papua for the next 25 years, commencing 01 May, 1963.
•	The UN’s final report on the implementation of the Act of Free Choice presented to the UN General Assembly (1969) to be accepted without open debate.
•	USA to be responsible to make investments through Indonesian State Owned Companies for the exploitation of minerals, petroleum and other West Papuan Resources.
•	USA to guarantee the Asian Development Bank with USA30 Million for UNDP’s 25-Year Development Program in West Papua.
•	USA to guarantee the World Bank with funds in support of the transmigration program for the resettlement of Indonesians in West Papua.

THE UNGA Resolution 2504 (XVI) of 19 November 1969
 in Observation

The resolution was proposed by six-powers, AL.574, adopted by UN General Assembly on 19 November 1969, meeting 1813, by roll-call vote of 84 to 0, with 30 abstentions.

No	Points of Observation of the Resolution	Legal Cases for Consideration	
1	The General Assembly,
     Recalling its resolution 1752 (XVII) of 21 September 1962, in which it took note of the Agreement of 15 August 1962 between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (West Irian), acknowledged the role conferred upon the Secretary-General in the Agreement and authorised him to carry out the tasks entrusted to him therein.
     Recalling also its decision of 6 November 1963 to take note of the report of the Secretary-General on the completion of the United Nations Executive Authority in West Irian,
     Recalling further that the arrangements for the act of free choice were the responsibility of the Indonesian with the advice, assistance and participation of a special representative of the Secretary-General as stipulated in the Agreement.
     Having Received the report on the conduct and results of the act of free choice submitted by the Secretary-General in accordance with article XXI, paragraph 1 of the Agreement.
     Bearing in mind that in accordance with the article XXI, paragraph 2, both parties to the Agreement have recognised these results and abide by them.
     Noting that the Government of Indonesia, in implementing its national development plan, is giving special attention to the progress of West Irian, bearing in mind the specific conditions of its population, and that the Government of the Netherlands, in close co-operation with the Government of Indonesia, will continue to render financial assistance for this purpose, in particular through the Asian Development Bank and the institutions of the United Nations.

•	Takes not of the report of the Secretary-General and acknowledges with appreciation the fulfilment by the Secretary-General and his representative of the tasks entrusted to them under the Agreement of 15 August 1962 between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (West Irian);
•	Appreciates any assistance provided through the Asian Development Bank, through institutions of the United Nations or through other means of the Government of Indonesia in its efforts to promote the economic and social development of West Irian.

Plenary Meeting-1813, 19 December 1969.	
•	There was no question about whether or not Papuan representatives were part of this Agreement. (See The Netherlands’s violation on this)

•	“Take Note” means no discussion. This was why even though there were reservations by various countries and also the UN Secretary-General’s representative to West Papua but all were ignored and not discusses in the light of International standards of laws and human rights.

•	The results were submitted but with reservations that were not considered at all.

•	The recognition was made 7 years before the outcome (at the Secret Rome Agreement)

•	The phrase “special attention”, given by the UN has been used to suppress and oppress Papuans. Many Papuans have lost their lives because of this “special attention”, which for Indonesia means treating Papuans not like the rest of Indonesia. The term “for development” has been used to suppress Papuan nationalists so far. The UN legitimised and legalised their brutal actions.
•	As stated above, reservations from various parties, including the UN Secretary-General’s representative were ignored. Papuans’ rights was denied and violated by the UN.
•	Only mentions future conspiracy entrusted through Indonesia, but no where in this Resolution says anything at all about the Status of West Papua as a non-self-governing territory.
•	There is no explanation on the political, legal and territorial status of West Papua within Indonesia.
•	No where in the resolution clarifies that West Papua is legally and politically part of Indonesia.
•	There is no statement clarifying the removal of West Papua from the Decolonisation List of the UN Commission 24.	

References: 
•	Saltford, John, 2000. The Role of the UN Involvement with the Act of self-determination in West Irian (Indonesian West New Guinea) 1968 to 1969, by John, England, A Paper (Mimeograph).
•	OHCHR and ILO, October 1998, 3rd Ed. Basic Human Rights Instruments, , Turin. 
•	United Nations, 1994. Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments, Vol. I (First Part) Universal Instruments, New York and Geneva. 
•	United Nations, 1994. Human Rights: A Compilation of International Instruments, Vol. I (Second Part) Universal Instruments, New York and Geneva. 
•	 WestPaC, 2000. WEST PAPUA: A Scandal in UN De-colonisation History, Jakarta, A Paper on Legal Cover of West Papua Issue (Memeograph).