3 Years ago, West Papua did a petition to the UN C24 decolonisation committee. They had collected a massive 1.8 million signatures, many risking jail by signing the banned petition and by smuggling sheets of paper across the territory.
While petition was rejected – it did get a response from the C24 committee, and the people of West Papua got their position out in the open.
This is something that we (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples) could look at doing.
The reason the West Papuan petition was rejected by the C24 committee:
…the chair of the decolonisation committee, Rafael Ramírez, said no petition on West Papua could be accepted because the committee’s mandate extended only to the 17 states identified by the UN as “non-self-governing territories”.
This is inexcusable. Decolonisation is an erga omnes obligation. UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 states:
Every State has the duty to promote, through joint and separate action, realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter, and to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle, in order:
(a) To promote friendly relations and co-operation among States; and
(b) To bring a speedy end to colonialism, having due regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples concerned;
and bearing in mind that subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a violation of the principle, as well as a denial of fundamental human rights, and is contrary to the Charter.
A/RES/2625/XXV
The C24 committee does have an obligation – as decolonisation is a duty TO ALL (‘through joint and separate action’). It is ridiculous for the C24 committee to claim that duty does not apply to them – given all of their committee members are in turn members of the UN bound by the UN Charter, and given that’s the C24 Committee’s ONE JOB!
It is interesting that lack of mandate was the excuse given. They could have argued that West Papua has already achieved self-determination from the “Act of Free Choice” referendum held in 1969. I suppose this means the C24 committee are well aware that the “Act of Free Choice” was a sham.
The experience of West Papua and the “Act of Free Choice” should be a warning to us – that yes – a small minority of colonised peoples can be handpicked and endorse a colonial proposal on behalf of and at the expense of the majority under colonial occupation. The world has, and will turn a blind eye if we don’t make noise. After the Yulara convention where a handpicked minority endorsed a proposal for the majority, we are perilously close to falling into the same situation.
As for this quote from C24 about territorial integrity of UN Member states:
One of the principles of our movement is to defend the sovereignty and the full integrity of the territory of our members. We are not going to do anything against Indonesia as a C24.
This is inconsistent with Resolution 2625 which states (emphasis added);
“Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour“
A/RES/2625 (XXV)
The resolution is clear. The upholding of UN member state’s territorial integrity is dependent on them meeting the above conditions. Does Indonesia meet this condition? Arguably not – as the 1969 “Act of Free Choice” left out the vast majority of the Papuan population – peoples who are geographically, culturally and ethnically distinct from the rest of Indonesia.
Australia certainly doesn’t meet the conditions. The Australian constitution does not and never has represented Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Australian Constitution also contains a “races” power that is actively used to discriminate against these polities that are native to the soil. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have never exercised their right to self-determination in the colonial context.
So as for Australia. What would the excuse be if we were to write up a petition to the C24 committee? I think probably the same thing and reject it as being outside of their mandate. Let me be clear – I don’t actually expect making a petition will put us on the C24 list of non-self-governing territories.
But if the petition were drafted in a way to remind them of the erga omnes nature of the duty to decolonise, it would put the C24 in a difficult position. If we had a well-drafted petition, pre-empting any excuses they are likely to come up with – it would be at the very least entertaining to watch them trying to squirm out. And the added benefit of letting the world know – we are sovereign people. We are not necessarily interested in constitutional assimilation.
The idea of a petition is not to dictate how decolonisation should occur, but that we ask the international community to uphold their promise made in 1960. The petition is to ask to be provided with the means for us to collectively make a fully informed decision free of colonial interference. It also is an assertion to the International community that we have never had a proper chance to do this, and that the Uluru Statement process did not meet that standard.
A petition could be done continentally. But could also be done on a State-by-State basis, as each State is it’s own colony and could decolonise as such. Fullas in Victoria – I’m looking at you. You have a head start being relatively smaller state and you could build off the work that has already been done mapping out the clans. Torres Strait Islanders, and peoples in remote communities also have a special case – being “geographically separate” from your colonial administrators in far away capital cities, the Bluewater hypothesis could work in your favour.
There is an alternative way to present a petition to what West Papua did. That is by instead of presenting it directly to the C24 committee, a UN Member state/s could sponsor in the General Assembly Resolution. There are many, many UN Member states who are still suffering after-effects of colonisation themselves and are not dependent on Ausaid – it shouldn’t be too hard to find one or a few sympathetic to our cause. To reach out to other member states is an assertion of sovereignty in it’s own right, and a good start at building up our own diplomatic relations and nationhood.
Image by mohamed Hassan from Pixabay
Just a couple of comments from a novice. Go for the petition you can do it for each state and a national one. It can then be used as a basis on how the treaty process is set up because the current process in Victoria is a process set up by the state government lawyers so as to make Dan Andrews and his Government look good its real objective needs to be a treaty for people. To construct a treaty those groups negotiating the treaty must be very much part of creating the process of treaty prior to discussing treaty. In a country like Australia where all forms of government have been corrupted by a judicial process built on piracy whose sole purpose is to exploit and not to create, it is essential to keep that corruption out of the treaty process.
The secret to making a good cake is to begin with untainted ingredients otherwise the cake will spoil!
IMO there can be no Treaty or “agreements” until the Uluru Statement is off the table. I would hope that such a petition will wipe the table clean to start again (with fresh ingredients!).