In brief, the letter asks for the ICJ to provide its opinion:

1) on whether the obligation to continue transmitting information under UN charter article 73e remains in effect since the transfer of administration from the Netherlands to Indonesia;

2) if the intent of the 'New York Agreement' to transfer administration without the people's consent violated international law and or the UN Charter;

3) if the 'New York Agreement' is unlawful for violating West Papuan wishes, for violating UN GA Resolution 1514 by delaying transfer of powers in accordance with the freely expressed will of its peoples;

4) if the 'New York Agreement' was a lawful authorization for the 1969 'Act of Free Choice', if the 'Act of Free Choice' itself was legitimate in light of multiple violations of the 'New York Agreement' terms and the UN Charter and GA Resolution 1541;

5) on whether West Papua qualifies as a non-governing territory as defined by UN GA Resolution 1541.

Letter is posted in full below:

To the Hon. Julian R Hunte and members of the Special Committee on Decolonization,

Dear Sirs,

We, the undersigned, draw your attention to the issue of the territory formerly known as Netherlands New Guinea, or in United Nations general assembly resolution 1752 and 2504 as West New Guinea. Urgency is required due to colonial like conditions which continue.

Respecting that the Special Committee draws authority from General Assembly Resolution 1654 (XVI) of 27 November 1961, that the General Assembly in Resolution 1654 part 3 established a 'Special Committee' consistent with Article 96 part 2 of the United Nations Charter able to 'request advisory opinions of the' International Court of Justice; and

respecting that the Special Committee is without delay directed by Resolution 1654 parts 4 and 5 to examine the application of the Declaration made in Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, and that the General Assembly Resolution 1654 parts 7, 8, and 9 require the cooperation of other United Nations authorities or personnel to fulfil these obligations.

We petition the Special Committee on Decolonization to request the legal opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) upon these five questions regarding the colonization status of this territory now under Indonesian administration:

Question 1)

Taking into consideration that the Kingdom of the Netherlands had until 1962 respected United Nations Charter Article 74 by complying with United Nations Article 73 by regularly transmitting to the United Nations Secretary-General information about the welfare and progress towards self-governance of the people of the territory of West New Guinea;

Taking into consideration that the Republic of Indonesia during 1962 signed the 'Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (Irian Jaya)', referred to by the United Nations in Resolutions 1752 and 2504, and also known as "the New York Agreement";

Taking into consideration that as a party to the 'Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (Irian Jaya)' that the Republic of Indonesian acknowledged under terms of that agreement including Articles XIV to XXI that the territory of West New Guinea was a territory which in the opinion of Indonesia had not yet conducted an act of "self-determination" and had not yet attained a full measure of self-government ;

Taking into consideration that the Republic of Indonesia was then and is now a member of the United Nations having agreed to respect the United Nations Charter including obligations under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter;

We ask the International Court of Justice to give its opinion on:

whether, upon the transfer of full administrative responsibility for West New Guinea to the Republic of Indonesia under terms of the New York Agreement, including obligations set out in Articles 73 and 74 of the United Nations Charter,

whether those obligations under Article 73 and Article 74 of the United Nations Charter remained in Effect until such time as West New Guinea ceased to be a Non-self governing territory as a result of the exercise by the people (not foreign nationals) of that territory of a genuine act of self-determination, in conformity with the United Nations Resolution 1541 (XV) 'Principles which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for under Article 73 e of the Charter' Principles VI to IX,

whether, the Republic of Indonesia remains in breach of its obligations under Article 73 by failing to transmit to the United Nations Secretary-General information referred to in that provision.

Should any United Nations entity at a future time be obliged to request the Republic of Indonesia to continue transmission of information regarding the territory of West New Guinea, both the reports by the Kingdom of the Netherlands until 1961 and Part 'c' of Section 1115 of the 'Foreign Relations Authorization' Bill HR2601 written by the 2005 US Congress may provide some guidelines for such information.

It may be noted that if the Republic of Indonesia had continued the transmission of such information;

that continued reporting of the "joint undertaking of the Freeport Sulphur Company and the Oost Borneo Maatschappij N.V., which is to examine and mine the copper ore in the Carstensz Mountains" which the Kingdom of the Netherlands did report on page 45 of their 'REPORT ON NETHERLANDS NEW GUINEA FOR THE YEAR 1961' in Chapter II Section E 'Mining' part 3 'MINING ENTERPRISES' as part of their obligations under United Nations Article 73 (e) was in fact referring to the same site which Freeport Sulphur directors knew from the 1936 exploration contained the world's richest gold and copper deposits which has since become the largest single tax payer to the Republic of Indonesia since the annexation of West New Guinea as an apparent Province of the Republic of Indonesia without regard of the West New Guinea people's known desire to live under their own governance; may have averted much of the suffering of the past forty years and current crisis.

Question 2)

We ask the International Court of Justice for its opinion on the validity of the 'Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (Irian Jaya)', taking into consideration that it was negotiated by the United Nations members, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia in secret and without the knowledge or consent of the territory's people to arrange a "Transfer of Administration" of West New Guinea;see ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/Oceania/jfkpapua.txt;

in disregard of well known international principles such as expressed in 1917 by US President Woodrow Wilson who in his address to the US Senate stated "No peace can last, or ought to last, which does not recognize and accept the principle that governments derive all their just powers from the consent of the governed, and that no right anywhere exists to hand peoples about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were property.",

in disregard of the United Nations members obligations under Article 1 (2) of the Charter of the United Nations enshrining the principles of equal rights and the self-determination of peoples,

in disregard of the obligations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, and

in disregard of the West New Guinea people's known desires to live under their own Parliament, governance, and 'Morning Star' flag.

Question 3)

We ask the International Court of Justice for its opinion on the validity of the 'Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea' to transfer the administration of West New Guinea from one sovereignty to another, specifically from the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Republic of Indonesia, taking into consideration that it was reached:

- in violation of West Papuan wishes to continue the decolonization & independence process in concert with the Netherlands colonial administration which had supported the election and installation of a West New Guinea Parliament in 1961 and had raised the Morning Star flag next the Dutch flag on 1st December 1961,

- in violation of indigenous wishes expressed by West Papuan highland villagers who overwhelm and arrested Indonesian paratroopers during December 1961,

- in violation of Netherlands colonial administration knowledge of West Papuan wishes expressed when the United Nations was requested in January 1962 to repatriate another 52 Indonesian sailors whose torpedo boat had been sunk inside West New Guinea's waters,

- in violation of West Papuan wishes to continue the system of democratic elections practiced since 1955,

- in violation of West Papuan preparations for full independence and made known to the United Nations under Article 73e of the United Nations Charter by the Kingdom of the Netherlands who transmitted full reports from 1950 to 1961 inclusive (see copies titled NNG Government Reports at http://www.papuaweb.org/dlib/_sejarah.html ), also by the election and installation of a West New Guinea Parliament in April 1961,

- in violation of West Papuan intentions expressed by its Parliament when it renamed the nation to "West Papua" and raised its new national flag on 1st/December/1961,

- in disregard of the United Nations members and the United Nations' obligations under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples", which calls for the immediate transfer of all powers to non-self governing territories without conditions or reservation in accordance with their freely expressed will or desire,,

- in deference not to West Papuan interests but to the wishes of the United States government as documented by the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, see http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summaries/950306_FRUS_XXIII_1961-63.html,

by reason of which the contract or "Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea" referred to by the United Nations in General Assembly Resolution 1752, should be declared legally null and void either having been made for an improper purpose, with the intent of depriving the peoples of West New Guinea of their rights and interests under the Charter as a non-self governing people, under duress, or not in the genuine "interests and welfare of the people of the territory of West New Guinea (West Irian)" as falsely claimed by that Agreement.

Question 4)

In agreement with the United States Congress majority who wrote and passed Section 1115 of the United States 2006 Foreign Relations Authorization bill HR2601, which in Part 'b', clause '5' stated:

(5) In July and August 1969, Indonesia conducted an `Act of Free Choice', inwhich 1,025 selected Papuan elders voted unanimously to join Indonesia, in circumstances that were subject to both overt and covert forms of manipulation.

and which in Part 'c', clause '2' required the US Secretary of State to submit a US report upon the legitimacy of the 1969 'Act of Free Choice', stating:

(2) REPORT ON THE 1969 ACT OF FREE CHOICE- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report analyzing the 1969 Act of Free Choice.

We ask the International Court of Justice to give its opinion upon the legitimacy of the 1969 'Act of Free Choice' , taking into account:

that the 'Act of Free Choice' was conducted in violation of Article 73 of the UN Charter,

that the 'Act of Free Choice' was conducted contrary to United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) "Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples" 14 Dec. 1960, which calls for the immediate transfer of all powers to the peoples of non-self governing territories without conditions or reservation in accordance with their freely expressed will or desire,

that the preparation for and the conduct of the 'Act of Free Choice' was in breach of the terms of the 'Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West New Guinea (Irian Jaya)' in these respects:

- Articles X and XI of the Agreement were violated in that UNTEA failed to explain to the population the terms of the Agreement and failed to consult representative councils elected by the people, as stipulated

- Article XIV of the Agreement was violated by denial of freedom of speech, movement, assembly, and communication with the outside world which had been enjoyed during the Netherlands' administration prior to Indonesian administration,

- Article XV of the Agreement was violated by lack of periodic elections,

- Article XV of the Agreement was also violated as the "primary task of Indonesia" as described by Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik ( see US Department of State telegrams at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128 ) rather than helping the social development of West New Guinea was to station 10,000 troops who "devote no time to helping people but merely attend to their own wants and comforts", the telegrams of 1968 further state "current situation is far from satisfactory and deteriorating, just as it has to the West of West Irian in Ambon where bad administration has been root cause of recent outbreaks of what in effect was gang warefare [warfare] between military elements engaged in smuggling and other corrupt practices" and that Mr Malik "suggested that support of the some 60 tribal chiefs of West Irian be gained through careful groundwork, including favors for them"

- Article XVI of the Agreement was violated in that no UN experts were appointed to advise and assist in preparation for carrying out the provisions for self-determination,

- Article XVII of the Agreement was violated by conducting the 'Act of Free Choice' process less than one year after the 22/Aug/1968 arrival of United Nations Representative, Ambassador Oritiz Sanz in the territory,

- Article XVIII was violated by not consulting with representative councils elected by the people on the procedures and methods to be followed,

- Article XVIII was also violated by not allowing "all adults, male and female, not foreign nationals to participate in the act of self-determination",

- Article XVIII was also violated by not conducting the 'Act of Free Choice' "in accordance with international practice" , but allegedly by a Malay system called 'Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat' in which community leaders are meant to freely debate,

- Article XIV and Article XVIII were violated as the 'Act of Free Choice' was in fact conducted by Indonesian officers selecting an alleged representative body who were subject to overt and covert manipulation to achieve an integration vote disregarding known Papuan opposition and long held independence aspirations,

that the alleged vote for integration was conducted under conditions which violate Annex 'Principle VIII' and 'Principle IX' of United Nations General Assembly resolution 1541, and

that the United Nations and its members including Indonesia failed to give due respect or consideration of statements and requests of United Nations Representative Ambassador Oritz Sanz such as published in the New York Times 7/July/1969 see: http://fandom.net/InfoKit/Src/NYT/19690707.pdf.

Question 5)

Irrespective of the ICJ determination of the above four issues affecting the legality of West Papua's current status,

We request the International Court of Justice to give its opinion on whether the Republic of Indonesia has an obligation "to transmit the information called for under Article 73e of the Charter" of the United Nations as specified in United Nations resolution 154,

we call to your attention, that a prima facie obligation does exist under Resolution 1541 Annex Principle IV which states :

"Prima facie there is an obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographically separate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it.";

given that West New Guinea is part of continental Australia and both New Guinea and the connecting Arafura Sea are upon the Australian continental shelf, that the indigenous and endemic fauna include kangaroo , echidna , and cassowary , that the predominant flora is Australian rain-forest, there can be no legitimate dispute that West New Guinea is geographically part of the Australian continent, and not part of Asia where the island of Java is located and where the Indonesian military forces and government come from ;

given that the West Papuan people like other Australian Pacific peoples are Melanesian, there can be no legitimate dispute that West New Guinea is ethnically distinct to Java ;

given that West Papuan people are Melanesian and not Polynesian or Asian, there can be no legitimate dispute that West New Guinea is culturally distinct to Java ;

given that West Papuan communities are based around large communal societies which have been developed and refined during the forty thousand years of their sole occupation of the northern Australian island of New Guinea, given that traditional communities retain highly developed social skills which include those required for community resolution and consensus building, and retain a strong land management culture , there can be no legitimate dispute that West New Guinea is culturally distinct to the culture of Java ;

given the subordinate position of Papuan people to Javanese business owners apparent in West New Guinea, the inequality of justice such as when the Timika ambush suspects were in January 2006 taken thousands of kilometers from their homelands and lawyers, or of the Indonesian investigations and courts ignoring clear evidence of Indonesian military (TNI) involvement before and after the Timika ambush, the inequitable gaol conditions often met out to Papuan prisoners as witnessed by a Swiss reporter in December 2000 (see http://fandom.net/InfoKit/Src/jail-rescue.html );

given that a US Department of State telegram of 1968 describes Indonesian Minister Malik stating "Ten thousand troops are not needed there, they are a drain on Indonesia and especially on overstrained West Irian economy" , there is good reason to believe that the approximately fifty thousand troops now authorised in West New Guinea by President Yudhoyono as well as the transmigration program and Indonesian military owned business exploitation of the territory constitute an alien domination indicative of subordination of the territory;

and other conditions of inequality should allow the International Court of Justice to provide a clear determination as to the applicability of resolution 1541.

On behalf of West Papuan and international human rights,
this letter and its petition to the Special Commission and
International Court of Justice
are sponsored by:

Australia West Papua Association and national coalition - Australia
Pacific Peoples' Partnership - Canada
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, The Hague, the Netherlands
West Papua Project, Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (University of Sydney)

Adolfina Zonggonau Ondawame, West Papuan Women Association, Vanuatu
Andy Ayamiseba, Representative, WPPRO, Port Vila, Vanuatu
Benny Wenda, Chair of DeMMaK, West Papuan Lobbyist in U.K.
Elizabeth Evatt LLB (Sydney), LLM (Harvard), Companion Order of Australia
Congressman Eni Faleomavaega LLM (Berkeley), United States
Dr. G Peter King, Discipline of Government and International Relations, Sydney Uni.
Bishop Hilton Deakin, Melbourne, Australia
Jacob H. Prai, Executive Director, OPM International Office, Sweden
Keith Locke, Green Party MP, New Zealand
Prof. Michael Byers LLB (McGill) LLM (McGill), University of British Columbia
Hon. Dr. Meredith Burgmann, MA(Syd) PhD(Macq) MLC
Prof. Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, United States
Octovianus Mote, Research Assoc. Yale Center for International and Area Studies
Dr. Otto Ondawame, OPM International Spokesperson WPPRO, Vanuatu
Rex Rumakiek, United Nations Representative, Suva, Fiji
Lay Sakita, chairman of Vanuatu Free West Papua Association, Vanuatu