Talk:Western New Guinea

Contentious info on independence referendum presented as fact

The article says:

"The Act of Free Choice ... was truly the opinion of the West Papuan people without any external intervention."

This statement has no citation and seems to be in heavy dispute. For instance the British newspaper The Guardian calls the referendum:

"a UN-sanctioned but discredited ballot ... in which barely 1,000 West Papuan representatives selected by Indonesia cast votes under threat of violence."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/06/jeremy-corbyn-on-west-papua-uk-labour-leader-calls-for-independence-vote

I understand that a statement isn't removed just because it has no citation, but doesn't this need to be looked at again?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.27.154.221 (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Official English name

The title "Western New Guinea" as oppose to its legal "West New Guinea" English name, "Irian Jaya" common name from 1973 to 2001, or "West Papua" common English name since 2002 is a Wikipedia invention by editors driven by political agenda and edit war instead of objectivity. BOTH the Indonesian and Netherlands governments used "West New Guinea" in their joint international agreement, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20437/volume-437-I-6311-English.pdf Daeron (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I've been going through the contemporary sources (newspapers and then secondary analyses): prior to around 1962 'West New Guinea' was the dominant usage in English, occasionally 'Dutch New Guinea' or 'Netherlands New Guinea'. No one used 'Western New Guinea' as the name of the region. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s Indonesian sources refer to 'Irian Barat' (West Irian), and some use 'Irian' to refer to the whole island. Only during the Suharto period, and particularly after 1969, does 'Irian Jaya' seem to have come into general usage. The Indonesian use of 'Papua'/'West Papua' comes after 1998 (but the former is confusing since it could also refer to part of PNG). Adrian Vickers (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

"The only Indonesian territory situated in Oceania"

If the Weber or the Wallace lines are taken as the boundary between the Asian and the Australian continents, Western New Guinea would not be "the only region of Indonesia situated in Oceania" (emphasis added). 112.120.39.24 (talk) 09:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

But the consensus here is that they aren't, so it is. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 09:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What about, e.g., Trangan and the rest of the Aru Islands? Which continent do they sit on? 112.120.39.24 (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop talking about Oceania. It is not a continent. It is a name written in large font on old maps, as a region, but was never well defined, and has fallen into disuse. Australia (continent) is a continent. Zealandia is a submerged continent. Western Papua New Guinea is part of the Australia. Introducing Oceania serves no purpose and is confusing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Edited. This reduces the excessive verbosity of the lede, and further improvement in concision of the lede would be good.

Oceania was not mentioned anywhere again, so this makes it particularly unworthy of the lede.

— SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

1945?

Before 1950 the Republic of Indonesia was a constituent of the United States of Indonesia, to which the Netherlands handed over Dutch East Indies in 1949. Dutch New Guinea remained Dutch until the early 1960s. The line "Following its proclamation of independence in 1945, the Republic of Indonesia took over all the former territories of the Dutch East Indies, including Western New Guinea." is therefore not entirely accurate. 112.120.39.24 (talk) 09:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Explaining the New York Agreement

In the history section of this article when discussing the New York Agreement the word "plebiscite" is used twice. Wiktionary defines plebiscite as meaning "A direct popular vote on an issue of public importance, such as an amendment to the constitution, a change in the sovereignty of the nation, or some government policy." I am a college undergrad but by no means super into law, or world history beyond a non history major's understanding but still this was a word/term that I had never heard of. Would changing the word to referendum harm the article in any way? Essentially what I am asking (because I am by no means an expert on Western New Guinean history) is does the word plebiscite indicate, explain, or contextualize the historical context of this specific plebiscite that would be lost by using the word "referendum" or the phrase "popular vote" in replacement of the current term (plebiscite) being used? I will leave this up for a couple days and then if there is no input I will be bold (WP:BEBOLD) and just change it.

Middle Mac CJM (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure 'referendum' would be better because that definitely implies popular participation - which was the original plan under the New York Agreement. One of the Chambers Dictionary definitions of "plebiscite" is "an ascertainment of general opinion in any matter", which is arguably close to what actually happened even though it was by a small number of hand-picked representatives. "Referendum" in the Papuan context nowadays is taken to mean a poplar vote on independence, so it may be confusing to use it in the context of the Act of Free Choice. I would suggest keeping the wording as it is. Regards Davidelit (Talk) 03:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Davidelit! That makes a lot of sense and I now also agree that we should keep the term plebiscite. Should we add a brief sentence after it's first mention as to what that means or do you think the Wiktionary external link is sufficient? Middle Mac CJM (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for responding. I think it's clear enough. The same word is used across all the relevant articles. By the way, there have been many of these discussions about terminology in the Indonesia project - almost always in historical articles. It keeps the grey cells working... Regards Davidelit (Talk) 04:00, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Middle Mac CJM & Davidelit for your genuine contributions. Although the article has greatly improved in some areas, in others it has remained or had misleading assertions inserted. Unfortunately, West New Guinea is a topic which the Indonesian government and Indonesian nationalists do not want exposed.

A copy of the 'Agreement' is available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%20437/volume-437-I-6311-English.pdf

Before addressing the 'New York Agreement' issue, I suggest/request the text "declared independence as the Republic of Indonesia in 1945" be excised from the third paragraph. The reason to dispute the text, which is unnecessary, is that the state to which the Dutch relinquished, and which the UN recognised in December 1949 was the "United States of Indonesia" (USI), not Sukarno's 'Republic of Indonesia" (RI).

As it happens, throughout the 1950s a number of USI states attempted to liberate themselves from the RI, and in light of West New Guinea's own ongoing efforts, it would be both misleading, and in poor taste to insert the Indonesian Republic 1945 claim into a West New Guinea article. Daeron (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

My apology, I hadn't even looked at the fourth paragraph, I'm hoping to deal with just one issue at a time. But, gawdy almighty! The "Trans-Papua Highway"?!! People have literally been killed over this thing, back in 2018 OPM TPN killed seventeen TNI construction workers/soldiers on the project. The road is asserted to be a tool of colonialism to give the TNI and transmigrant population easy access to West New Guinea's heartlands. Have any of you ever seen Marlon Brando's 1963 film "The Ugly American"? A fictional S-E-Asian nation in which the US is building 'Freedom Road', the new ambassador can't understand the opposition and his old friend denouncing it as a tool of colonial oppression with which the US and a puppet gov't will loot the nation. Same thing with the "Trans-Papua Highway", only Indonesia's being accused of doing a bit more of the killing itself. Neither the road nor claims of 'improving' conditions should be made without context of the history and other conditions; it's meant to be an encyclopedia (academic) article, not an Indonesian propaganda pamphlet. Daeron (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

O.K., let's deal with the 'New York Agreement', which is rather important!

A person would certainly be confused if they were to rely on the current article, though it's a pleasant surprise to see people have incorporated some of my own articles into it, the majority of the article's text has the effect of being Indonesian whitewash to demean Papuan agency and justify Indonesia's. From an interdisciplinary academic point of view the 'New York Agreement' was set into motion in 1910, by a Dutch mistake in 1935, and criminal activities in and after 1936; however, for an article whose scope is only West New Guinea; I advise staring with May 1959 US Dep't of State memo https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v17/d203 in which John Henderson is proposing "a special United Nations trusteeship over the territory for a limited number of years, at the end of which time sovereignty would be turned over to Indonesia.

That is the 'New York Agreement' that he is talking about (transferring sovereignty without the people's agreement), what he is proposing, is illegal; by 1959 it was no longer legal to buy or sell people and their sovereignty, but you can achieve de-faco transfer of a people's sovereignty without their consent.

What Henderson is using, "United Nations trusteeship" is Chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations "The International Trusteeship System"; which requires you write an agreement, get the colonial administrator and any other UN claimant to sign it, then get the UN to approve it; and normally then tell the UN Trusteeship Council about the new trusteeship authorisation.

So long as nobody tells the Trusteeship Council, nobody puts the issue on the Council's agenda, the Trusteeship Council can not and will not begin its UN Charter article 87 and 88 legal duties; and so long as the colony remains in limbo, Indonesia & America and others can murder, rape and loot anybody they like.

That is West Papua's (West New Guinea) current situation. The UN became both the trustee & the administrator when our governments submitted to blackmail at UN General Assembly plenary meeting 1127 on the evening of 21 Sep' 1962 to authorise the text authorising U-Thant to annex the colony (a.k.a. UN General Assembly resolution 1752); then the UN administrator appointed Indonesia as "administrator" effective 1 May 1963; see 'Administrative History' in https://search.archives.un.org/downloads/united-nations-temporary-executive-authority-in-west-irian-untea-1962-1963.pdf

Please understand, the 'New York Agreement' itself is NOT an authority, it has nil power, it is a request asking our governments at the UN General Assembly to give the then new UN Secretary General U Thant to use UN military force to annex the colony; the legal authority comes from our international Charter of the United Nations which is law in 193 nations. The 'New York Agreement' exists because Charter article 75, 77, 80, 81, 83&85 requires there be an agreement signed by the would-be colonial members; and such documents only become effective/trusteeship-agreements if either article 83 or 85 empower them, which we did via article 85 part (1); "The functions... shall be exercised by the General Assembly"

Despite the conspiracy theories that others promote, the 1961 US Sec' of State, CIA Director, and President Kennedy were opposed to the proposal; the people pushing it are from the National Security Council (NSC) under McGeorge Bundy as National Security Adviser; Bundy's not getting cooperation he expected , so by March 1961 'somebody' has told Indonesia

see https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v23/d150

After that memo there's a memo in which Sec' of State opposes it, the yearly summary cites the CIA's advice that Sukarno is untrustworthy, as for President Kennedy, we know he had not approved it before 1 December 1961 because of this record in which Bundy is pleading for the President's consent https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v23/d205

The above is as much concerning 1961 as I think you can put into a 'West New Guinea' article, the other details document why Sukarno wanted to kill and replace UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjold with Sukarno's friend U Thant, and how it was done, and how they pressured President Kennedy during December 1961 - it's a rabbit hole, logical, almost undeniable, and too tempting for an edit war; avoid the excess information. Try to cut the article down to the essential documented facts; the scheme for a special UN seizure of West New Guinea had been proposed in May 1959, revealed to Indonesia by March 1961, by 1962 Indonesia's friend U Thant was the UN Secretary General pushing the US and others to authorise him seizing control of West New Guinea and in 1963 appointing his Indonesian friends as 'administrator'.

The legal status has not changed, the 1969 'act of free choice' was not recognised as a referendum of Papuan preference, in the minutes of the 1969 debate (plenary meetings 1810, 1812, 1813) a number of UN members lobbied to include text asking Indonesia to allow an independence referendum by 1975 which India & Indonesia opposed on grounds that the proposed 1969 General Assembly text (resolution 2504) has nothing to do with West Papua or its sovereignty, the Assembly is being asked to authorise a text only because the 1962 agreement says the Assembly should mention the 'act of free choice', the agreement does not suggest any need to explain what it is or what happened, just the words 'act of free choice' somewhere by the Assembly.Daeron (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2025 (UTC)