In 1949, the Netherlands argued that West Papua should be detached from the rest of Indonesia because it was populated by a different Melanesian race.

Indonesia claimed the decolonisation of West Papua already happened – and there was deadlock over the right to self-determination for West Papuans.

Eventually, Indonesia and the Netherlands accepted the UN’s proposal that:

“The status quo of the Residency of New Guinea should be maintained, continuing under the Government of the Netherlands; with the stipulation, however, that within a year from the date of transfer of sovereignty, the political status of New Guinea should be determined, and the dispute on this matter terminated, through negotiations between the Republic of the United States of Indonesia and the Netherlands”

But 60 years later, the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) believes the decolonisation process is yet to be completed by Indonesia since its ‘detachment’ by the Netherlands was never properly addressed.

West Papua was meant to be given every opportunity to choose freedom or integration with Indonesia.

Instead, in a fatally flawed ‘Act of Free Choice’, Indigenous Papuans had voted under gunpoint and forced to accept integration with Indonesia.

The ULMWP says the detachment of West Papua in 1949 by the Netherlands must be revisited, including the ‘re-inscription’ of West Papua on the list of Non-Self-Governing Trust territories of the United Nations (such as the former German colony of New Guinea had been).

After decades, 61 years, the Uti Possidetis Juris legal maxim has come on to the radar as the legal doctrine applicable to this case.

Uti Possidetis Juris is the doctrine of international law stating that, upon the end of belligerence, territory and other property remains with its possessor.

The ULMWP says the way forward exists for an International Commission of Jurists advisory opinion similar to the Chagos Island case, which reinforced the end of British sovereignty.

It is argued that the claim to sovereignty by Indonesia is absent due to the detachment of West Papua in 1949 by the Netherlands.

The failure of Uti Possidetis Juris to keep West Papua as an integral part of Indonesia reinforced the argument the Dutch used all along: the anthropologic script that the people of West Papua were of different ethnicity (and thus a different nation).

The ULMWP argues that the Melanesian Spearhead Group only has to emphasise the racial factor to keep freedom's call for West Papua alive.

This resonates with the previous Dutch position and the argument of West Papuans as a distinct race.

And that West Papua should be ‘detached’ until self-determination was possible.

In 1961, the process of self-government in West Papua was begun. By 1971, 10 years later, West Papua was to be independent.

It was a clear articulation of the Dutch position on self-determination which formed part of the conditions to end the deadlock in 1949.

But, in the final outcome, this did not happen. The relevant great powers reached the New York Agreement which conveniently brushed aside Papuan nationalism and the right of self-determination for West Papua.

However, decades later, this situation has come under greater scrutiny and is questioned due to the 2007 re-examination under the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights (UNDRIP).

UNDRIP revisited the New York Agreement which had been silent on self-determination for Indigenous Papuans.

The Non Self-Governing Trust of the United Nations had West Papua on the list for decolonisation.

In theory the Act of Free Choice provided by the New York Agreement of 1969 was to pave the way for freedom for West Papua.

Instead, the opportunity arose to ensure West Papua was ' surgically removed' from the list.

The roadmap to freedom for West Papua is a long one. Uti Possidetis Juris proved to be the obstacle.

But this challenge could be addressed due to the lessons from the Chagos Island case.

In 2019 the UN General Assembly requested an advisory opinion in the Chagos Island case. It is necessary for such an advisory opinion on West Papua.

The time has come for ULMWP to connect the dots in in this entangled drama.

The logical conclusion is on the table because now ULMWP is able to connect the dots.

One of them is the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples Rights of 2007.

It could well be argued that the pro-Indigenous peoples UN protocol supersedes the New York Agreement of 1969.

In the cascading ripple Uti Possidetis Juris would get shelved to allow the decolonisation process to be completed in West Papua after 70 years.

The incomplete decolonisation of West Papua, the baggage left behind by Dutch and Indonesia failing to agree and then the Dutch being pushed by the US into a deal that totally ignored the inhabitant Papuan people, is contrary to UN Resolution 1514 – the Charter On Self Determination.

The failure to decolonise West Papua in a timely and proper manner has haunted the region, caused the deaths of millions of people and triggered a guerrilla war that continues to this day.

In the forensic forum of the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Chagos Island, it was argued that the UN Resolution 1514 provided for decolonisation that had not occurred in that place.

The ULMWP and Papuan nationalists argue that Indonesia has a weak argument to hold on to West Papua. UN Charter Resolution 1514 was never exercised and the New York Agreement totally failed to define international best practice.

Both universal suffrage and self-determination were absent. There was no fair and ethical Act of Free Choice. It was puppetry.

These events in history impair any claim that West Papua is part of the Indonesian State. Indonesia did not even attempt to allow the West Papuans – Melanesian by birth and by title to their land – to exercise a free vote.

Australia proved to be its usual cowardly self when dealing with Asians, hovering nervously in the shadow of the Americans then as today.

Indonesia still argues that self-determination for West Papua is not absolute but normative; that it should be considered territorially and applied to the whole territory of Indonesia as defined by their late colonial masters and not just parts of it.

Indonesia’s right to West Papua was applied in the Indonesian declaration of independence on 17 August 1945. End of argument.

On the other hand, ULMWP argues that West Papua today is a case of failed decolonisation.

For six decades resistance to Indonesian rule has survived undiminished by weak global support, a continuing war or imigrasi.

West Papua’s population of 5.6 million is now comprised of 51% West Papuan, 15% Javanese, 16% other Indonesian provinces and 18% other.

It is to be supposed that Indonesia will derive some comfort when the balance tips against Indigenous Melanesians.

The ULMWP roadmap to freedom for West Papua is factored on a referendum, free from coercion, with universal suffrage and with the oversight of international observers

It could perhaps come in two parts: the first determining association with or secession from Indonesia, and the second, in the case of secession, deciding between independence and federation with Papua New Guinea.

Complicated though they may be, these solutions will put an end to conflict and do a great deal to secure stability in this borderland between Asia and Oceania.

Under Resolution 1514 the Papuan nation would get a hearing at last and a long awaited opportunity to be free.