[Kabar-Irian] Irian News - 2/22/06 (Part 1 of 3)
Too much mail? Switch to the digest version. Info provided at the end of this
email.
To leave this list follow the instructions at the bottom of this email. As a
matter of policy we DO NOT handle requests except in emergencies.
- Council comes out against partition of Papua for West Irian Jaya province
- Church comes out against Papua partition
- W. Irian Jaya province to hold regional leaders election on March 10
- West Irian Jaya still in limbo
- Jimly reaffirms legal status of West Irian Jaya
- Papua: Foreign Media Ban Continues to Obstruct Press Freedom
- U.S., RI turning the corner
- West Papuan asylum seekers need protection
- Viewpoint: Challenges facing Australia Indonesia relations
*****************************
The Jakarta Post.com
Headline News
February 18, 2006
Council comes out against partition of Papua for West Irian Jaya province
Nethy Dharma Somba, The Jakarta Post, Jayapura
The Papuan Legislative Council announced Friday it would oppose the
partitioning of Papua to create West Irian Jaya province.
The decision, which was reached during a plenary session presided over by
council deputy speaker Komarudin Watubun, will be brought to Jakarta for
discussion at a Feb. 20 meeting between representatives of the proposed
West Irian Jaya province, Papua province and the central government.
During the session Friday, the councillors concluded there was no need at
present to divide Papua, and any future divisions would have to be done
according to Article 76 of the 2001 Papua Special Autonomy Law. The
article states that any partition of the province must first be approved
by the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP).
If the central government insists on establishing West Irian Jaya province
outside of the conditions laid down by the 2001 law, the Papuan council
said it would call another plenary session to determine its next move.
However, four factions in the council said their only objection to the
establishment of West Irian Jaya, which is already operating as a de facto
province, was that the government circumvented the 2001 law in forming the
territory.
Members of the Prosperous Peace Party faction said West Irian Jaya
province could not be officially established until the central government
issued an instructional regulation on the implementation of articles in
the 2001 special autonomy law, including the one on the partitioning of
Papua province.
The Joint Faction expressed its full support for the decision to oppose
the establishment of West Irian Jaya, while waiting for an instructional
regulation in line with the 2001 law.
Albert Yogi, chairman of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle
faction, said what the legislative council was opposed to was the process
by which the new province was created.
The MRP, in an earlier report to the legislative council, said now was not
the appropriate time to partition Papua province, and any future partition
had to be done according to Article 76 of the 2001 law.
If the central government insists on moving forward with creation of the
new province, the MRP will submit seven requirements the government must
meet.
These requirements include a promise not to increase the flow of
immigration to Papua, an assurance that Papua will still constitute one
economic and sociocultural entity, and the promise of development for
Papuans under their special autonomy status.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jakarta Post.com
Headline News
February 20, 2006
Church comes out against Papua partition
Nethy Dharma Somba, The Jakarta Post, Jayapura
Influential Papuan church groups and community organizations are
supporting the Papuan Legislative Council's opposition to the creation of
West Irian Jaya province.
"I fully support the council's decision because it is considered the best
to avoid any possible conflicts that may arise in Papua over the
establishment of West Irian Jaya province," Rev. Herman Saud, chairman of
the Papuan Injili Christian Church Synod, said in Jayapura on Saturday.
Support against the partitioning of the province also came from local
chapters of the Indonesian Christian Students Movement (GMKI), Association
of Catholic Students (PMKRI), Indonesian Christian Women's Association
(PWKI) and the Cooperation Forum of Non-governmental Organizations (Foker
LSM).
Representatives Jems Mayor (GMKI), Jens Cherry Meak (PMKRI), Rev. Wanaha
(PWKI) and J. Septer Manufandu (Foker LSM) were signatories.
The statement said the public consultation conducted by the Papuan
People's Assembly (MRP), which was used by the legislative council Friday
to oppose the Papuan partition, was legitimate and must be presented to
the central government for consideration, Antara news agency reported on
Saturday.
Rev. Herman Saud warned it would be a bad precedent if the central
government did not heed Article 76 of the 2001 Papua Special Autonomy Law
and went ahead with the partition of the province. The article states that
any partition of the province must first be approved by the MRP.
During a plenary session Friday, the councillors concluded there was no
need to divide Papua at present, and any future divisions would have to be
done according to Article 76. West Irian Jaya is already operating as a de
facto province.
"There may emerge similar partitions in other regions throughout the
province without necessarily having gone through the process of approval
from the MRP. This will not be good for both the people and the law
itself," Herman told The Jakarta Post.
The government must respect the legislative council's decision, he added,
or else the partitioning of the province was the will of Jakarta, not of
Papuans.
"The partitioning of Papua province outside the 2001 law is illegal
because the province is regulated under the law. Therefore any decision
should be taken in line with the law."
If the central government insisted on establishing West Irian Jaya outside
of the conditions laid down by the 2001 law, the Papuan council said it
would call another plenary session to determine its response.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Antara
Feb 22 00:13
W. Irian Jaya province to hold regional leaders election on March 10
Jakara (Antara News) - West Irian Jaya was reported set to hold the
regional administration leaders election on March 10, 2006.
"The election scheduled on March 10, 2006 could no longer be delayed,"
Chairman of West Irian Jaya Legislative Assembly Jimmy Demianus Ijie said
here Tuesday after a dialogue on the status of the province with regard to
the Constitutional Court’s Chairman Jimly Assiddiqie.
According to him, a regional election in West Irian Jaya was actually a
must, as it had been delayed twice.
"At present, people can cast their vote at their respective polling
station," he said.
Furthermore, he pointed out that regional leaders election in West Irian
Jaya province under the 1945 constitution was actually the right of an
autonomous region, so that the central government was not authorized to
set the date of the election.
The date of the regional election was supposed to be set by the West Irian
Jaya provincial election commission.
Earlier, Home Minister M Ma’ruf reaffirmed that the status of West Irian
Jaya province should be confirmed prior to the holding of the direct
election of regional leaders in the province.
"The issue on West Irian Jaya and Papua should be settled by the law, and
not later than on Feb 20, 2006 the status of West Irian Jaya should have
been confirmed," he said after meeting tens of Papuan community leaders.
Touching on the readiness of West Irian Jaya to hold the election, the
minister said technical problems may be encountered in the field, but the
legal status of the regional election should be discussed first.
Although the government has set Feb 28 as a deadline to decide on the
status of West Irian Jaya, no agreement was forthcoming after Vice
President Yusuf Kalla met with Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal
and Security Affairs Widodo AS, the Home Minister, the Papuan People’s
Council (MRP) and the Papua Legislative Council at his office.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jakarta Post.com
Headline News
February 21, 2006
West Irian Jaya still in limbo
Tony Hotland, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Uncertainty remained about West Irian Jaya's status Monday, with the
central government unable to reach a solution with groups opposed to the
partition of Papua to create the new province.
Although the government previously set Feb. 20 as the deadline to decide
on the status of West Irian Jaya, no agreement was forthcoming after Vice
President Jusuf Kalla met with Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal
and Security Affairs Widodo A.S., Home Minister M. Ma'ruf, Papuan People
Council (MRP) and the Papuan Legislative Council at his office.
No representatives of West Irian Jaya province were present, but Kalla
reportedly met Council Speaker Jimmy Demianus Itjie at his residence
earlier in the morning.
The creation of West Irian Jaya, already operating as a de facto province,
has pitted the central government against the MRP and Papua
administration. The province was established through the 1999 law on
autonomy.
The MRP, founded last year, is seeking the revocation of the establishment
of the province, based on the 2001 Papua Special Autonomy Law. Under the
latter's terms, any matters concerning the partitioning of Papua must come
before the MRP.
MRP chairman Agus Alue Alua said the council filed a recommendation Monday
with Jakarta, which he said came after consulting with various groups in
Papua, most of which opposed the partitioning of the province.
"The recommendation is a fixed decision by the MRP and Papua Council. We
didn't come for more discussion. We'll let the government study it first,"
he said.
Agus said the MRP and the council would agree to negotiations only if the
government acknowledged that all issues related to the country's
easternmost province must refer to the special autonomy law.
The lengthy debate has held up plans to hold local elections in Papua,
with vote organizers confused about whether to include West Irian Jaya
residents in the polls.
Ma'ruf said the government would look into the recommendation, but
referred to a Constitutional Court verdict that acknowledges the
establishment of the new province.
The court said the 1999 law was unconstitutional, but then recognized West
Irian Jaya on the grounds that the division was already made.
"If we find that it isn't the time (to divide Papua), we'll just leave
things as they are for the public the enjoy the special autonomy status
there. This would mean that Papua goes on under Law No. 21/2001 and West
Irian Jaya under Law 32/2004 (on local administration)," said Ma'ruf.
Papua is one of the poorest areas in the country, with most of its
abundant natural resources ending up outside the province. Critics say the
creation of the new province provides a means for the central government
to continue to profit from West Irian Jaya, with the authority of the MRP
limited to Papua.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jakarta Post.com
Headline News
February 22, 2006
Jimly reaffirms legal status of West Irian Jaya
The Jakarta Post, Jakarta
Despite opposition from Papuan community groups, the Constitutional Court
has reaffirmed the status of West Irian Jaya as a province, saying it only
lacks a legal operational basis to regulate government activities there.
West Irian Jaya Legislative Council chief Jimmy Demianus Itjie and West
Irian Jaya caretaker governor Timbul Pudjianto were part of a delegation
that met Tuesday with Constitutional Court Chief Justice Jimly Asshiddiqie
and justice Achmad Rustandi to ask about the legal status of their
province.
In 2004, the Constitutional Court was asked to rule on the validity of
West Irian Jaya province, established in 1999, following the enactment of
the 2001 Papua Special Autonomy Law.
The latter stipulated that any partitioning of Papua province would
require the approval of the Papua People's Assembly (MRP). The court ruled
the 1999 law was unconstitutional, but said the 2001 law could not be
applied retroactively because West Irian Jaya was already established as a
province.
"Establishment of a gubernatorial government is an act of law which cannot
be rescinded," Jimly said.
His comment drew cheers from the delegation.
He noted that under the Constitutional Court's ruling, the government
needed to establish a legal basis regulating operational matters for its
activities there, not a legal basis for the province itself.
The government missed its deadline of Feb. 20 to reach a solution with
groups opposed to the partition of Papua to establish West Irian Jaya.
The MRP has cited the 2001 law in its objection to the establishment of
the province, saying it also received overwhelming support from community
groups.
MRP chairman Agus Alue Alua said Monday the council would only be willing
to negotiate on the issue if all matters related to the easternmost
province referred to the special autonomy law.
Jimly reiterated that because West Irian Jaya was established by the 1999
law and legitimized by the court in 2004, the special autonomy law of 2001
was not pertinent.
He added that he believed every party involved in the issue understood the
2004 Constitutional Court's decision.
"It is just a matter of determination from the government," he said.
"The Constitutional Court cannot dictate to the government what to do."
Jimmy said he was relieved by the explanation, and the province would go
ahead with gubernatorial elections on March 10 concurrently with Papua
polls.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pacific Magazine
Papua: Foreign Media Ban Continues to Obstruct Press Freedom
Monday: February 20, 2006
The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) has written to the
Indonesian Government demanding the removal of the ban on foreign media in
West Papua immediately.
The IFJ is concerned over the stance taken by Indonesian Minister of
Defence, Juwono Sudarsono, claiming the ban on all foreign media, churches
and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is required for fear their
presence in West Papua would “encourage Papuans to campaign on issues of
human rights.”
The ban has prevented any foreign journalist from having official access
to the region in the past eighteen months, severely restricting the
media's ability to tell the West Papua story. There is also the concern
that the foreign media ban is a direct attempt to conceal human rights
abuses from the world.
The restrictions on foreign media are in direct opposition to Indonesia's
obligations since ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. Article 19 recognises the right to "seek, receive, and
impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."
“Restrictions on foreign journalists represent a blatant violation of this
right and seriously curtail the ability of the world's media to report in
West Papua,” said IFJ president Christopher Warren. “The denial of foreign
media access to West Papua suggests an attempt to conceal human rights
abuses.”
The IFJ represents over 500,000 journalists in more than 100 countries
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jakarta Post.com
Opinion
February 22, 2006
U.S., RI turning the corner
James Van Zorge, Jakarta
For the most part, the history of relations between Washington and Jakarta
has been a positive and intriguing story. From 1965, when Soeharto came to
power, Indonesia was viewed as a reliable partner in the vein of Cold War
politics.
With Cold warriors running foreign policy, the U.S. was willing to forgive
Soeharto for his excesses; containing the spread of communism necessarily
trumped moralist politics. Because of U.S. geopolitical interests in
Southeast Asia -- especially during the Vietnam War and the pervasive fear
amongst the policy elite of a domino effect should Ho Chi Minh prevail --
Soeharto's Indonesia was treated as a strategic asset.
When the U.S. military departed Saigon in 1975, President Gerald Ford and
his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger had a lot to worry about the
future of Asia. It would be a safe bet that the specter of communists
establishing a foothold in Indonesia must have frightened them.
Initially, Soeharto was adamantly opposed to the idea of an invasion. His
stance changed, however, upon hearing that the Timorese leader Jose Ramos
Horta was contemplating an alliance with China after independence.
The rest is history. Ford and Kissinger visited Jakarta to discuss the
fine details of an invasion and how the U.S. was to cover its tracks.
Soeharto and Ford may have thought of East Timor as Indonesia's Cuba, yet
what happened in the following decades is that it became Indonesia's
Little Vietnam, with Jakarta taking all the blame and the U.S. denying
everything.
Lying and cover-ups served both parties' interests. The end of the Cold
War meant, however, that it would be difficult for U.S. presidents to turn
a blind eye towards Indonesia and get away with it. Washington stopped
military aid to Indonesia by canceling the International Military
Education Training (IMET) program in October 1992; in 1994, it banned
sales of small and light arms; in 1999, military joint exercises and
commercial arms sales were banned. Finally, in 2001, Senator Leahy
sponsored an amendment to the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, which
suspended all military assistance to Indonesia.
Just as the Cold War and its ending can explain U.S. policy towards
Indonesia, so can George Bush Jr.'s "war on terror". After 9/11, there was
a rising chorus of U.S. neoconservative policymakers who made the argument
that Indonesia was a key ally in the war against terror. Now, it was only
a matter of time before they would find a way to have national security
interests trump human rights.
In late 2005 the Bush Administration finally decided to face off against
Senator Leahy. Using an executive waiver as allowed in the 2006 Foreign
Operations Appropriations Act, the White House managed to lift
restrictions on U.S. military financing and the export of lethal equipment
for Indonesia.
Leahy was surely incensed with Bush and his acolytes; but before he could
prepare for a counter-offensive, more nasty surprises were in store for
the senator.
Strike two against Leahy came in December 2005, when the U.S. National
Security Archive released previously classified documents on East Timor.
In those documents, there was clear evidence of U.S. support for the
Indonesian invasion of East which, effectively, made nonsense of Leahy's
moralist stance and insistence to punish Jakarta.
One might surmise that with Indonesia being touted as a reliable partner
in the war on terror and Leahy effectively sidelined -- at least
temporarily -- U.S.-Indonesia relations have turned a corner for the
better.
There is, however, one small problem remaining which, if not handled
correctly, could swing the pendulum back. The issue under scrutiny is the
deaths of two Americans in August 2002 during an ambush on an
international school bus in the province of Papua.
According to the Indonesian government and armed forces, the attacks were
carried out by separatists belonging to the Free Papua Movement, or OPM.
There are others who believe that, in fact, the ambush was carried out by
the special forces of the Indonesian military who, ostensibly, were making
a bold statement against U.S. mining company Freeport McMoRan for being
delinquent on payments to the TNI for providing it with security services.
Suspicions were raised about the credibility of the allegations made
against OPM when an autopsy on the Papuan who supposedly played a role in
the attack showed that he was not alive when the ambush took place. There
were also leaks from inside U.S. intelligence to the international media,
suggesting that the Indonesian military was involved.
Now, even after FBI investigations have been completed and suspects
arrested by Indonesian authorities, suspicions of a cover-up are rife. Our
suspicions were also raised after credible and well-placed sources inside
Papua told us that the arrested suspects are, in fact, not really suspects
at all, but rather, well-informed witnesses who could implicate parties
other than OPM in the shootings.
Apparently, there are also officials inside the U.S. Government who are
also apprehensive about taking the arrests at face value. This includes
Senator Leahy, who recently told the press that "...there are so many
unanswered questions in this case, including who these people are and what
role they may have had in these crimes."
Regardless, we do not feel qualified to lodge any accusations or pass
judgment. We would say that, if the Bush Administration wants to maintain
closer ties to Jakarta for the sake of national security, it should ensure
that duplicitous means are not being used to achieve those ends.
Responsible decision-makers in Jakarta and Washington would be
well-advised to remember the lessons of the East Timor saga, one of which
is that the truth almost always emerges.
-- The writer is a senior partner of Van Zorge, Heffernan & Associates, a
government relations consulting firm based in Jakarta. He can be reached
at jvzorge@rad.net.id.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Green Left Weekly
February 22, 2006.
West Papuan asylum seekers need protection
Gillian Davy, Melbourne
A powerful video message from Herman Wainggai, spokesperson for 43 West
Papuan asylum seekers incarcerated on Christmas Island, was a highlight of
a Free West Papua Collective public forum attended by 120 people on
February 15.
Wainggai made a passionate call for Australian and international support
for his peoples’ struggle for independence from Indonesia. He explained
that he and fellow independence activists had fled West Papua because they
were being targeted by the Indonesian military (TNI).
Uncle Kevin Buzzacott welcomed the meeting to Indigenous land and Kimberly
Smith, a member of the Council of the Anglican Diocese, said a petition
calling on the church to investigate claims of TNI human-rights abuses in
West Papua, and to explore the call for a United Nations review of the
1969 “Act of Free Choice” has been presented to the Melbourne Anglican
Synod.
Scott Burchill, senior lecturer in international relations at Deakin
University, recalled addressing similar meetings throughout the 1980s and
1990s in support of the East Timorese independence struggle when critics
argued that he was supporting a lost cause. “They were wrong.”
“The issue of terrorism is new for Canberra. But for 43 years West Papuans
have been terrorised”, Australian Jacob Rumbiak, West Papua Association
spokesperson, explained, adding that West Papuans wanted to solve the
independence issue through peaceful means.
Greens Senator Kerry Nettle, who recently visited the asylum seekers on
Christmas Island, recounted their personal stories of persecution and
abuse. One asylum seeker spoke of being poisoned while imprisoned for his
pro-independence activities; another spoke of the murder by the TNI of his
14-year-old child. Wainggai explained that he put his three-year-old twin
girls onto the handmade boat that took five days to make the crossing to
Cape York, because he wanted them to survive the TNI’s repression.
Nettle called for a national day of action in support of West Papuan
independence on April 2.
[The Free West Papua Collective meets every Wednesday at 6pm at Trades
Hall, Carlton.]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Asia Pacific/Radio Australia
Viewpoint: Challenges facing Australia Indonesia relations
Hamzah Thayeb, Indonesian Ambassador
20/02/2006
As Australia ramps up diplomatic efforts to plead for clemency for the two
Australians sentenced to death for drug trafficking, Jakarta is also
pressing Canberra on a different legal issue.
The Indonesian government wants 43 asylum seekers from the Indonesian
province of Papua who recently arrived in northern Australia, sent back.
Indonesia's Ambassador to Australia, Hamzah Thayeb, discusses the latest
challenges facing this vital bilateral relationship.
Q: Were you surprised at the severity of the sentencing of the so-called
Bali Nine?
HT: I think you have to see the problem of drugs. Indonesia, we are facing
a big problem on this issue, and it is our policy to deal with this, and
try to get rid of this scourge, probably, I would say.
Because heroin, if it goes to the public, you can imagine how many
families will be affected by this. Because it affects the younger
generation, and it will affect the future of them, and the country itself.
So, that is why we have to have these very tough laws and harsh penalties
towards drugs.
Do you think that the judges were taking a cue from this very harsh new
zero tolerance drugs policy that the President introduced last year?
HT: Yes, we have to be firm with this. In the past, of course, we have
also dealt with drug smugglers, and we have dealt with them harshly.
Probably you read also in the papers here that we have dealt with an
Indian national, a Thai national, and the most recent is Brazilian, even.
He was asking for clemency from the President, but it was turned down
because, again, the policy is really to deal with this very harshly.
If the executions of the Brazilian and the others you mentioned went ahead
despite pleas for clemency, would our politicians be wasting their time in
pursuing clemency?
HT: Well, we can fully understand the views of the Australian public, as
well as your government, because you do not adopt the death penalty. But
you should also understand the way we see these problems, and that is why
we are adopting such tough laws and penalties.
And we just hope for you to understand that we cannot interfere in that
process. So, we just have to see how it develops in the future, because
they still have so many recourse, three stages still for them to go.
Have you had any representations from groups, from Australian citizens,
complaining about the death penalty in this case?
HT: I'll be frank with you, I've been receiving letters but not
complaining. They're supporting our decision to be firm on what we are
doing. And not only letters, I've been receiving lots of phone calls.
So this shows that your public already understands why we are taking such
action.
The other issue is the West Papuan asylum seekers. You've said that it has
the potential to harm bilateral ties if they are granted asylum. How would
it be harmful?
HT: What we have now is this good relationship between both our countries.
One thing, the Papuans came to Australia claiming that they are being
persecuted. Persecuted by whom?
Because probably you also are aware that after we reformed internally we
have made fundamental changes all over, not only in Papua but all over. So
these are the changes that we are still making. So we do not see any
reason for them claiming that they are being persecuted.
The activists insist that their lives will be in danger. I mean, they
arrived flying the West Papuan independence flag, their banner told of
four decades of human rights abuses, and one of them, Herman Wainggai, had
spent time in prison. Are you saying that, if they return they won't face
any consequences for what they have just done?
HT: Unless, of course, they are involved in criminal activities, of course.
Are pro-independence activities regarded in the same vein?
HT: Look, we have already made fundamental changes. We are now trying to
correct all these past mistakes. In this process, we have given autonomy
to the regions and not only that, specifically to West Papua. We set up
this Papuan People's Council.
Many say the Papuan People's Council is a sham.
HT: People say whatever they want. We have established, and this is a
mechanism that is already in place and, again, if Mr Wainggai wants to
dialogue, why don't he dialogue with his... This is a mechanism which is
comprised of all Papuans.
Are you saying that it's not a troubled province? Because some of the
reports we have got recently is that 12 separatists were arrested there
only last month. Even more recently one was killed. And 10,000 troops were
redeployed from Aceh to West Papua.
Now, if it's not a troubled province, why do you need all those extra troops?
HT: 10,000 troops? I also read that we have been bringing in tanks.
So it's not true?
HT: Look at the topography of West Irian. It's swampy, it's mountainous.
Tanks and 10,000 troops? No.
How can we be sure that they will be treated like any other Indonesian
citizen if they go back, given that the province is closed to the media,
it's closed to monitors, it's closed to researchers and, according to your
defence minister, will remain closed?
HT: My President already gave his guarantee. If they went back to West
Papua, it would be guaranteed that nothing will happen to them. This is my
President who's talking, that's it.
Yes, with all due respect, I'm sure everybody believes that is true. I
think they would be more concerned about rogue elements of the military or
Kopassus.
HT: Again, incidents probably may still happen, but that does not mean
that we will be sitting idly and just watch, no. Again, like I said, we
have reformed even our justice system.
In that process, we will investigate whatever happens there and we will
bring those who are responsible to justice. Even the military has already
reformed quite fundamentally.
The fate of these asylum seekers is in the hands of an independent
immigration tribunal which will assess them on their merits in accordance
with Australia's international obligations, so it's not in the Australian
government's hands. So if this tribunal grants them asylum would that
still create difficulties in our relationship?
HT: If they are being granted asylum like you said, 'asylum', then it
would imply that they are being persecuted, which is not the case. The
best way to resolve this is for them to go back.
But if an independent tribunal, independent of the Australian Government,
decides on the evidence that they do deserve asylum, could that still harm
ties, even though the Australian Government has no influence over the
tribunal?
HT: One-sided evidence, for me, is not evidence. Because what they are
doing is they are claiming that they have been taking action. It's all
one-sided, so I don't think that would be a good way for a tribunal or
independent tribunal to look at things, only from one side of the problem.
Some Australian analysts have called this issue a 'time bomb'. To what
extent is there a fear in Jakarta and Indonesia that Australia, which
played a big role in the independence of East Timor, might one day see
West Papua in the same vein?
HT: Look, East Timor has a totally different historical background. It's
different. Again, you cannot make comparisons of West Papua with East
Timor. I always want to see this as we have very good relations with
Australia.
We will be trying to find a resolution of this issue in a friendly manner,
to find an arrangement which is good for both of us. Because the bigger
picture is the political relationship that we have. That is what I think
is important.
Because both of us, being in this region, we have to also look at the
bigger picture, the stability of the whole region. I mean, you're already
in the East Asia Summit, that is one of the issues, the bigger picture we
have to see.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KABAR IRIAN ("Irian News") www.kabar-irian.com
NOTE: "All items are posted for their news/information content. They are
not necessarily the views of IRJA.org or subscribers. "
To join, leave or change options:
http://www.kabar-irian.com/mailman/listinfo/kabar-irian
or send an email to kabar-irian-request@kabar-irian.com and place in the
subject header SUBSCRIBE or UNSUBSCRIBE (Depending which it is you want to
do). Typing Help as a subject will give more info.