A silent war of narratives rages within the shadowed forests and contested borders of West Papua. Every symbol, story and stance is more than just a mere cultural expression; they are weapons wielded in a complex battle spanning from local to global powers. Over the past six decades, the inhabitants of West Papua have witnessed continuous violent clashes between the supporters of Papuan independence and Indonesian military forces. As a manifestation of third-person nationalism and part of an imagined community, the region has been transformed into a battleground for sovereignty disputes. This encompasses a wide array of discourses across different levels of power. Since the end of the Dutch colonial rule, the signifiers have changed as the power structure evolved, involving diverse actors from the grassroots movements to the international community.
This article explores the changing nature of the signifiers and their influence over the signified—in this case, West Papua—throughout the history of its discourse. Ferdinand Saussure introduced a basic understanding of semiotics, consisting of a signifier and a signified. The signifier is the form that a sign takes, such as words, images, or gestures, while the signified is the concept or meaning that the signifier represents. This relationship is contingent and based on social conventions. In the context of West Papua, the signifiers used to describe the region and its people have changed by various actors over time, reflecting shifts in political, social, and cultural discourses. These evolving signifiers influence how West Papua is perceived and understood, shaping the signified concepts associated with it.
The examination of the various players in this ongoing discourse offers insight into how these dynamics have evolved. The article also considers how symbols of resistance, legal battles for legitimacy, and political movements contribute to the larger picture. George Herbert Mead’s theory of symbolic interactionism, which explores how language shapes individual and societal identities, can inform our understanding of the subject. This theory is closely related to the dynamic interactions of diverse groups of actors in West Papua, including indigenous communities, Indonesian officials and global observers.
Furthermore, symbolic interactionism attributed varied meanings to the region’s symbols, events and narratives, including the production and reinforcement of overlapping imagined communities. Benedict Anderson’s seminal work on imagined communities offers a framework for understanding the formation and sustenance of national identities. Anderson posits that nations are socially constructed communities, imagined by the people who perceive themselves as part of the group. This notion can be particularly illuminating when applied to the conflict in West Papua, reflecting a battle between discourses and signifiers.
Dutch New Guinea: Colonialism’s First Voyage
Contestation began when West Papua was still known as Dutch New Guinea, a part of the Dutch East Indies. Initially, the region was under the control of the Sultanate of Tidore. However, as the sultanate became a steward of the colonial administration, New Guinea eventually came under colonial rule. The integration process included adding the word ‘Dutch’ to the official name. This marked the first meaningful signifier over the contested area. In this case, the name ‘Dutch New Guinea’ is itself a signifier for the specific region—the western half of Guinea—evoking a specific historical context and discourse of sovereignty.
Originally, the label denoted the region’s status as a component of the Dutch colonial empire, marking it as a territory under Dutch rule and distinguishing it from other areas. This term also indirectly implies the lack of sovereignty, as the island was not free to govern itself. The impact of this colonial domination is further exemplified by the renaming of key cities, such as Hollandia, the capital, named after a region in the Netherlands. Such renaming directly linked the city to Dutch national identity and heritage, indirectly symbolising its influence. It serves as a method to Europeanise the town, integrating it into the Dutch colonial empire through politics, administration and, more importantly, culture.
Nationalist Discourse Over Papua
Everything changed in the 1920s when the Dutch East Indies—in particular on the island of Java—witnessed a rise in the nationalist movement, which sought to promote a sense of Indonesian identity that transcended the archipelago’s diverse ethnic and cultural groups. At this time, the concept of bangsa was crafted by the founding fathers to evoke a collective sense of national identity. It was socially constructed as an imagined community of the people who perceive themselves as part of the group—in this case, Indonesians. Despite skepticism about the feasibility of such a vision due to the region’s high level of diversity, the value of bangsa was imposed across the islands, including Dutch New Guinea.
Interestingly, around a similar period, when the Japanese invaded New Guinea, a Koreri military movement initiated the discourse of Papua nationalism. Unlike the Indonesian nationalist movement, which fostered an imagined community, the Papuan movement unified under the symbol of the Morning Star flag. The shift also started at the grassroots level, rather than being constructed by the elites on the top, with the initial goal being to find a potential partner to get the Dutch out of West Irian, a new name for New Guinea. As they called it with a new name, another signifier that evoked a different meaning was created. The Morning Star flag itself is a significant icon of such a signifier, pointing to West Irian. Its display—especially in the context of sovereignty—symbolises resistance and the pursuit of independence. It serves as a powerful symbol and an agreed-upon representation among the Papuans, signifying their collective struggle for freedom to showcase their cultural identity.
Indonesia’s Imagined Community: Papua Included?
After the independence, Indonesian First President Soekarno envisioned a newly-built nation stretching from Sabang, Aceh, to Merauke, Papua. The vision was founded on the notion that Indonesia’s boundaries should follow the map of the former Dutch East Indies, including Dutch New Guinea. This idea of Indonesia is an imagined community in the form of a nation that emerged from collective experiences, such as the resistance against Dutch colonialism and the pursuit of independence. In parallel, Papua has cultivated its imagined community, deeply rooted in distinct cultural, linguistic, and historical experiences, setting it apart from the broader Indonesian identity. This Papuan identity is symbolised through elements like the Morning Star flag, local languages and unique cultural traditions. The struggle over sovereignty highlights the conflict between these imagined communities. Indonesia aims to foster national cohesion by integrating Papua within its diverse nation. However, many Papuans seek acknowledgement of their distinct identity and, in some instances, they advocate for political self-determination. The symbols of each community—the Indonesian flag and the Morning Star flag—become central to this tension, representing clashing nationalisms and signifiers.
The eventual dominance of Indonesia over Papua in their clash of imagined communities can be attributed to the imbalance of power that made Indonesia more powerful than Papua: not just militarily, but also in the discourse of national identity. Indonesia gained significant influence in the international arena and further cemented its position through diplomacy. As a nation of strategic importance in Southeast Asia, Indonesia was able to leverage its international relationships and status, particularly evident during the critical negotiations for West Papua’s transfer from Dutch to Indonesian control in the 1960s. Nonetheless, what is often overlooked in the reasoning behind such success is the subtle dyadic relationship formed based on the narration of backwardness, primitiveness and racial inferiority.
Race Comes Into the Equation: Euro-Centric Perspective
The discourse of race was introduced by the Dutch, who insisted Indonesians were Asian while New Guineans were dark-skinned Melanesians. This contributed to the perspective of racial inferiority that exists within a Euro-centric world; the framework of racio-semiotics shows how various signs, including language, policies and cultural portrayals, are used to form and convey racial identities and hierarchies. The Dutch employed a range of semiotic tools, such as textual documentation, administrative classifications and public discourse, to ingrain these racial social classifications into the collective consciousness within the region and globally.
As these racial narratives spread, they shaped international perceptions of Papua. The portrayal of Papuans as ‘primitive’ or ‘underdeveloped’ in racial terms influenced the global viewpoint, leading to a tendency to undervalue or overlook their capabilities of self-governance and independence. Additionally, assigning negative traits within a dyadic relationship signifies the semantics of power. This creates a hierarchical perception of Papua, thereby reinforcing stereotypes of backwardness.
This perspective can be seen in a conversation between the United States President John F. Kennedy and the Ambassador of the Netherlands J. H. van Roijen, when Roijen explicitly compared Papua to Berlin: ‘Oh, that is entirely different because there are something like two and a quarter million West Berliners where there are only seven hundred thousand of those Papuans. Moreover, the West Berliners are highly civilised and highly cultured, whereas those inhabitants of West New Guinea are living, as it were, in the Stone Age.’ Racio-semiotics are embedded and visible in the statement and particularly in the phrase ‘are living, as it were, in the Stone Age’, as a signifier with negative connotations for Papuans. The dialogue signifies the beginning of years of power disparity between the Papuans, the Indonesian government and the international community.
Papua vs Irian Jaya
On July 1 1971, a few years after Indonesia’s acquisition, the Morning Star flag rose again. This time, the Papuans unofficially organised themselves under the banner of Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM), or Free-Papua movement. OPM began with a centralised command, but after a feud between Seth Jafeth Roemkorem and Jacob Hendrik Prai, two significant commanders, the movement was divided into two factions. This change in nomenclature represents a symbolic struggle over the meaning and identity of the region.
The name ‘Papua’ reflects the region’s nationalistic aspirations and movements, contrasting with the ‘Irian’ identity imposed by the New Order government. Interestingly, there was a widespread belief that IRIAN stood for ‘Ikut Republik Indonesia Anti-Nederland’, translating to ‘Join the Republic of Indonesia Against the Netherlands’. This aligns with George Herbert Mead’s assertion—as interpreted and quoted in Blumer—that symbols and language are crucial in forming individual and societal identities, emphasising that meanings emerge from interactions between people.
Mead posits that meanings are not inherent to objects or symbols but arise through interpersonal interactions. People interpret and define these symbols within the context of their social interactions, influencing their understanding of themselves and their societal roles. The Papuan movement, in its essence, is a struggle against the imposed meanings and identities by external forces, particularly the Indonesian government. They have actively strived to redefine what it means to be Papuan, contesting the negative stereotypes and labels attributed to them.
Moreover, the case of renaming the province ‘Irian Jaya’ by the Indonesian government can be seen as an attempt to impose a certain identity and meaning onto the region. In response, the Papuan movement seeks to assert its identity, symbolized by the name ‘Papua,’ which carries connotations of nationalism and resistance against external domination. It was not until President Abdurahman Wahid, more widely known as Gus Dur, that the region was again renamed Papua to eradicate the stigma and reconcile with the local population. This alteration of the signifier once again aims to demonstrate Indonesia’s peaceful intentions and to highlight the Papuan’s authentic identity, in contrast to a name imposed by an external entity.
One of Many Symbols: Revolution Still Persists
West Papua’s turbulent history, rich in symbolic and narrative conflicts, encapsulates a profound struggle for identity and sovereignty. This region, once known as Dutch New Guinea, has seen its identity continuously moulded by the interplay of colonial influence, nationalist fervour and indigenous aspirations. The transformation from a mere colonial appendage to a fiercely contested part of Indonesia showcases the intense interplay between power, identity and resistance. Central to this narrative is the Morning Star flag, which has evolved from a simple emblem into a potent symbol of Papuan resistance, challenging the sovereignty claims of both Indonesia and the Netherlands. This struggle goes beyond mere symbols, encompassing linguistic and cultural reappropriations as acts of defiance against long-standing colonial narratives and racial stereotypes. At its core, the West Papuan struggle is a contestation of imposed meanings and identities. The underlying issues—poverty, injustice, racial discrimination and brutal oppression—remain the core concerns. It is also a fight against the narratives of backwardness and primitivism, often perpetuated by colonial and neocolonial powers. This struggle for identity and sovereignty is intricately tied to broader themes of nationalism, cultural autonomy and the right to self-definition.