Each December 1, supporters of the OPM (Free Papua Organization) and various pro-independence activists mark “Flag Day” by raising the Bintang Kejora, invoking what they call “Papua’s independence.” But a growing body of historical evidence—and even admissions from former OPM founders such as Nicolaas Jouwe, Nicholas Messet and Frans Albert Joku—shows that the foundation of this ritual is shaky. Rather than a longstanding Papuan nationhood, what emerges is a story of colonial manipulation, broken promises, and ultimately legitimate reintegration under international law.
Broken promises: the legacy of the 1949 Round Table Conference
The roots of the dispute go back to the decolonization process after World War II. In 1949, the former colonial power, Kerajaan Belanda (Netherlands), agreed to transfer sovereignty of the Dutch East Indies to the newly independent Republik Indonesia at the Konferensi Meja Bundar (Round Table Conference—KMB). But critically, the status of what was then called Netherlands New Guinea (West Papua) was not resolved. The agreement stipulated that its fate would be negotiated within a year.
However, that promise was never honored. Rather than integrate Papua into Indonesia alongside the rest of the former colony, the Dutch attempted to hold on to their “last colony.” As international decolonization advanced in Asia, the Netherlands clung to Papua—even though Indonesia had become independent as early as 1945—seeking to retain colonial control over at least part of its former empire.
Thus, the unresolved status of Papua from 1949 set the stage for a prolonged colonial stalemate, rather than a straightforward post-colonial integration, and planted the seeds for the later separatist narrative.
Legal and historical ties: Papua as part of Indonesia under “uti possidetis juris”
Contrary to arguments that Papua has always been a distinct nation, historical and legal records suggest continuity with the Indonesian archipelago. While proponents of independence often highlight ethnicity or cultural differences, international law recognizes the principle of “uti possidetis juris”—meaning newly independent states inherit the administrative boundaries they held under colonial rule. When Indonesia inherited sovereignty from the Netherlands after 1949, the de facto territory of the Dutch East Indies (Hindia Belanda) included all its former possessions, including Netherlands New Guinea (West Papua). As such, Papua belonged to Indonesia. This interpretation was long upheld by the Indonesian government.
Furthermore, the history of Papua is deeply intertwined with broader Indonesian history—from ancient maritime kingdoms such as Sriwijaya and Majapahit to later sultanates like the Tidore–Ternate, which historically exercised influence over parts of Papua. These deep historical connections point to a shared regional heritage, even before formal colonial rule.
Thus, from both a legal-international and historical perspective, Papua’s integration into Indonesia is not a post-colonial addition or an afterthought but a continuation of the territorial identity inherited by Indonesia.
The colonial ruse: how the Morning Star Flag and early nationalist institutions were Dutch-engineered
A pivotal moment came on December 1, 1961, when supporters of Papuan nationalism—under the auspices of a body called Nieuw Guinea Raad (New Guinea Council), created by the Dutch—raised the Bintang Kejora for the first time in what was then called Hollandia (now Jayapura). A national anthem, Hai Tanahku Papua, was also adopted. The Dutch promised full independence for Papua “in ten years,” i.e., by December 1, 1971.
But what many in Papua and across Indonesia did not know—until recently—is that the Bintang Kejora itself was not an ancient Papuan symbol. Instead, it was originally the flag of a local football club in Jayapura (then called Hollandia), and the Dutch manipulated it into a nationalist emblem by removing the football symbol and replacing it with a star.
In effect, the Dutch leveraged local institutions—such as the “Papoea Bestuur School” (Papuan Administrative School) in the 1950s—to cultivate a Papuan elite educated to oppose Indonesian integration, instill “separate identity,” and seed pro-Dutch nationalism. Through the New Guinea Council and related bodies, they institutionalized Papua as a separate colonial entity.
With hindsight, many former proponents of Papuan nationalism have conceded they were misled. One former member of the New Guinea Council, Nicolaas Jouwe who helped create the Morning Star as a national symbol, later recounted that the “promise of independence” was merely a colonial tool—a “Dutch trick” to maintain influence.
Thus, the foundation of the independence claim—the Morning Star flag, the anthem, the nationalist institutions—emerged not from indigenous Papuan sovereignty, but from a colonial stratagem.
Indigenous Papuan resistance to colonial divide-and-rule: loyalty to Indonesia
History also records that many Papuan leaders rejected the Dutch colonial plan. Figures such as Silas Papare, Marthen Indey, Johannes Abraham Dimara, Machmud Rumagesan and later Frans Kaisiepo refused to participate in the separation. They opposed colonialism and supported the integration of Papua into Indonesia. These leaders backed Operation Trikora, launched by the then-Indonesian government in 1961–1962 to reclaim Papua from the Dutch.
Their stand demonstrates that the vision of a separate Papuan nation was not universally accepted among Papuans—and that many saw their future within a united Indonesia.
International legitimacy: from the New York Agreement to the PEPERA 1969
The historical turning point came on 15 August 1962, when the Netherlands, under pressure from the international community, and Indonesia signed the New York Agreement. Under that agreement, administrative control of Netherlands New Guinea (West Papua) would be handed over to the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA), which would then pass it to Indonesia. The transfer was completed on 1 May 1963.
The agreement also stipulated that the indigenous population would have to choose their political status through self-determination before 1969. That self-determination was held in the form of the Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat/PEPERA (Act of Free Choice) on July 14-August 2, 1969, and was attended by 1082 representatives of 800000 indigenous Papuan people considering the geographical and social conditions at that time. The result, internationally recognized, was that Papua remained—and remains—part of the Republic of Indonesia. The result of PEPERA has been legitimized by the United Nations through UN Resolution 2504 in 1969, with 84 countries agreeing, 30 countries abstaining, and 0 rejecting.
According to official Indonesian and international records, the outcome was accepted through a UN resolution, giving legal finality to Papua’s status as part of Indonesia.
Furthermore, unlike many former colonial territories, Papua was never listed under the special decolonization list maintained by the UN’s Committee for Non-Self-Governing Territories (C-24). That omission is a strong indication that in the eyes of the international community, Papua was not regarded—at the time or later—as a “non-self-governing territory” awaiting decolonization.
Hence, the reintegration of Papua into Indonesia was not just a nationalist aspiration—it was a legally and internationally validated process.
The Global Flag-Raising movement: a dissonant echo of colonial design
Given this historical record, the recurring raising of the Bintang Kejora every December 1—as a claim for Papuan independence—appears less like an expression of indigenous self-determination and more like the remnants of a colonial design, repackaged as a separatist ritual.
The fact that the Morning Star was originally a football-club banner, later co-opted by the Dutch colonial regime to foster a Papuan nationalist identity, undermines the claim of a legitimate Papuan “state.” The promise of independence by 1971 was never fulfilled—not because of Indonesian suppression alone, but because the promise itself was an artifact of colonial manipulation. Even former Papuan leaders who believed in that promise later acknowledged it was a “trick.”
Moreover, the New York Agreement and the PEPERA process—despite criticisms—remain the internationally recognized legal basis for Papua’s integration into Indonesia. The acceptance by the UN and global community, including former colonial powers, demonstrates broad international recognition of Papua’s status as part of Indonesia.
Thus, the Global Flag-Raising movement—which seeks to resurrect the colonial-era separatist banner and rebel against the internationally accepted status quo—rests on a narrative that has been exposed as historically false, legally resolved, and morally questionable.
Why December 1 should no longer be celebrated as “Papuan Independence Day”
Given the weight of historical, legal, and moral evidence, there are compelling reasons why December 1—the date associated with the first raising of the Bintang Kejora—should not be treated as a legitimate “Papuan Independence Day.”
- The Bintang Kejora is not an indigenous Papuan symbol but a colonial invention.
The origin story of the flag as a local football-club banner, later manipulated by the Dutch into a nationalist symbol, undercuts its claim to represent Papuan self-identification or legitimate statehood. The so-called “national flag” of a Papuan state is, at its root, a colonial relic.
- Independence was a Dutch promise—not a Papuan declaration.
Far from arising organically from Papuan will, the “independence promise” was crafted by the Dutch colonial administration, likely to preserve influence and maintain a foothold in the region. It is disingenuous to treat that promise as valid today—especially when many of the original proponents later renounced it as a deceit.
- International law and global institutions have already settled the matter in favor of Indonesia.
Through the New York Agreement and PEPERA—and with worldwide recognition, including from the United Nations—Papua’s integration into Indonesia is legally binding. That should settle the matter once and for all.
- Raising the flag today is less about Papuan self-determination and more about perpetuating a colonial-born separatist symbol.
The December 1 ritual is, in effect, a revival of a colonial-era divide-and-rule legacy. Continuing to treat it as a legitimate national commemoration undermines Indonesia’s territorial integrity and legitimacy under international law.
What this means for the present: towards unity, not division
The historical evidence—from colonial archives to recent investigative journalism—strongly suggests that the narrative behind December 1 as “Papuan Independence Day” is deeply flawed, rooted not in indigenous self-determination but in colonial manipulation. The Bintang Kejora, once a football club banner, was transformed by the colonizer into a nationalist emblem. The “promise of independence” that followed was never genuine and ultimately collapsed under the weight of international law and global legal consensus.
For those who care about Indonesia’s unity and future, these facts matter. Recognizing the historical truth does not deny Papuans their identity or culture—it simply rejects a divisive myth that has outlived its colonial origin.
As of today, Papua remains part of Indonesia, not because of coercion alone, but because the world—through legitimate international agreements—has affirmed it. What is needed now is not the revival of a colonial-era symbol, but genuine efforts at unity, development, respect, and understanding across the entire archipelago.
In this sense, December 1 should no longer be a day of separatist commemoration but a reminder of why national unity, grounded in historical truth and international legitimacy, matters for all Indonesians.
Conclusion
The narrative of “Papua’s Independence” promoted through the annual Global Flag-Raising movement on December 1 is built on historical inaccuracies and colonial-engineered symbolism rather than genuine indigenous self-determination. The origins of the Bintang Kejora flag, along with the early nationalist institutions in Papua, were constructed by Dutch colonial authorities as a political tool to resist integration with Indonesia following the 1949 Round Table Conference. Historical evidence demonstrates that many influential Papuan leaders supported integration with Indonesia and rejected colonial manipulation.
International law further solidifies Papua’s legal status within the Republic of Indonesia. Through the 1962 New York Agreement and the 1969 PEPERA, later affirmed by UN Resolution 2504, Papua’s integration received full international legitimacy. Additionally, Papua was never placed on the UN’s list of territories pending decolonization, confirming global recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty over the region.
Thus, the December 1 flag-raising ritual perpetuates a divisive colonial legacy rather than a legitimate national claim. Instead of reviving symbols rooted in colonial strategy, Indonesians—including Papuans—are better served by unity, mutual respect, and constructive development. December 1 should be a reminder of the importance of national integrity grounded in historical truth and international legality, not a celebration of a myth built on manipulation and misinformation.