[Kabar-Irian] Irian News - 3/27/06 (Part 3 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.
The Weekend Australian
Trouble by the boatload
Opinion
Greg Sheridan
March 25, 2006
Is there another boat on the way? This is the question now in
Australia-Indonesia relations after the granting of temporary protection
visas to 42 West Papuans. The West Papuans came here by boat and claimed
they were being persecuted in the troublesome province of Indonesia.
This is a big, big, big story.
In response to the Australian grant of protection visas, Jakarta withdrew
its ambassador and there were angry denunciations of Australia by
Indonesian parliamentarians.
While naturally we do not know the precise motivations of the people who
came here by boat, their action is a brilliant stroke in the ongoing
political drama of Indonesia, Australia and West Papua.
West Papua could be the new East Timor of Australia-Indonesia relations,
only much more troublesome and of much greater long-term significance. The
Howard Government understands the stakes very well. It had limited
leverage over the decision to grant asylum, which is undertaken after an
independent review process by the Department of Immigration and
Multicultural Affairs.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has done everything in his power to
prepare the Indonesians for this decision.
At the end of February Downer went to Jakarta for a day, ostensibly to
attend a conference on terrorism. His true purpose was to speak to his
Indonesian counterpart, Hassan Wirajuda, about the Papuans. He had four
central points to make to Wirajuda.
First, that the Australian Government was steadfastly committed to the
policy that West Papua was part of Indonesia and that Indonesia had
legitimate and permanent sovereignty over West Papua.
Second, that Australia supported President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono's
efforts to bring about a political settlement in West Papua through a
special autonomy package.
Third, that the formal decision on granting temporary protection visas to
those involved was not a question of government policy. It would be
decided first by immigration department officials acting under set rules
that involved international law and treaty obligations.
And fourth, that even if the Papuans were rejected by the department, they
would be in Australia for a substantial time because they would inevitably
appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal, and after that to the Federal Court
and then the High Court. This whole process could take years.
Downer may not have made the point but such a prolonged process, with the
Papuans cast as victims, may well have done much more to polarise
Australian opinion against Indonesian rule in West Papua than a decision
allowing them to stay.
At one level, the Indonesians have taken this calmly. Wirajuda was polite
and friendly in all his conversations with Downer. However, for Indonesia
to recall its ambassador is a very serious diplomatic step. It did not
take this step all through the turmoil of East Timor.
The official Indonesian statement draws attention to Australia's repeated
determination to keep out boatpeople from Middle East nations. These
included Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power and Afghanistan when the
Taliban was in power. The Indonesians are affronted that they are seen as
not only persecuting their citizens in West Papua but in some sense are
registered as worse than these Middle East nations.
But perhaps the most telling sentence in the Indonesian statement was
this: "The decision justifies speculations that there are elements in
Australia that support separatist movement in Papua."
Many Indonesians see West Papua, and Australia's involvement in it, as
another East Timor. For many years Canberra reassured Jakarta that its
policy was to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor, but in the
end, from Indonesia's point of view, Australia was crucial in East Timor
gaining independence.
Many Indonesians suspect Australia of having a secret, similar game plan
for West Papua. The international debate on West Papua will occur mainly
in Australia. It will be led mainly by Australian non-government
organisations. It will percolate to the rest of the international
community through Australian-based activists. And if an independence
referendum is held, it will be because Australia has changed policy. And
it will almost inevitably involve Australian soldiers, during the vote or
just after.
Some elements of this widespread Indonesian perception are clearly wrong.
Canberra never had a conspiracy to make East Timor independent but got
caught up in a series of unpredictable events. It was the Indonesians who
decided to hold a referendum on the issue and once that decision was made
the movement of Australian public opinion was inevitable.
Certainly the Howard Government has absolutely no desire to see an
independent West Papua.
Nonetheless, it faces an exquisite dilemma. There are certainly human
rights abuses in West Papua and Canberra cannot and should not be blind to
that. But in trying to support human rights in West Papua, Canberra wants
to give no comfort to the independence movement.
The stakes for Indonesia are enormous. Indonesia has only just got
military to military relations re-established with Washington. It is just
beginning to attract new foreign investment and register good economic
growth. If West Papua becomes an international cause celebre, this could
all come under threat.
There are two ways this could happen. A single, gross act of disastrous
policy, such as some heavy-handed security operation or massacre, could
inflame international opinion, especially in the US Congress.
Alternatively, if a succession of Papuan activists were to row to
Australia and repeatedly test our refugee assessment machinery, building
on the precedents of these West Papuans, this could become a running sore
in the relationship and give the issue a new, heightened international
profile. As well as giving Australia a whole new boatpeople problem.
The most encouraging factor is that the Indonesian Government, especially
the President, has a lot invested in the relationship with Australia. It
won't want to blow it all away over this one incident. Things can probably
shortly return to normal.
Unless, of course, there are new boats on the horizon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Weekend Australian
Indonesia's refugee anger over Papuans
Cath Hart and Sian Powell
March 25, 2006
Indonesia has recalled its ambassador to Australia and described as
"deplorable" Canberra's decision to grant temporary protection visas to 42
West Papuan asylum-seekers who said they feared for their lives if they
were sent home.
In the greatest threat to bilateral ties since Australia led peacekeeping
forces into the former Indonesian province of East Timor in 1999, angry
Indonesian ministers accused Australia of "double standards".
A strongly worded official Indonesian government statement even raised the
threat of Jakarta weakening its commitment to stop boatpeople coming to
Australian shores.
Dick Woolcott, former ambassador to Indonesia and head of the Department
of Foreign Affairs, said last night he could not recall Jakarta's envoy
ever before being recalled.
Jakarta's statement said: "The Government of Indonesia is surprised,
disappointed and deeply deploring the decision."
It said Australia's "vigorous" rejection of many asylum-seekers was in
"stark contrast" to the "hasty accommodation" given to the 42 Papuans.
"The Indonesian Government cannot but detect the application of a double
standard in this respect because in many other cases of asylum-seeking,
the Government of Australia has vigorously rejected them."
The rift erupted on Thursday after the Department of Immigration found 42
of the 43 West Papuans - who landed on Cape York in an outrigger canoe in
January - had a well-founded fear of persecution and issued them temporary
protection visas.
The Papuans, who include pro-independence activists and their families,
have accused Jakarta of committing "genocide" in the troubled former Dutch
colony taken by Indonesia in the 1960s.
The Weekend Australian has learned that a torture expert who met the group
told Immigration officials he felt they had "strong and consistent"
claims.
But Indonesia has slammed the decision and said it confirmed suspicions
that separatists were working out of Australia.
Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda said the Indonesian ambassador
Hamzah Thayeb would return to Indonesia "as soon as a plane can bring our
ambassador home". Last night the ambassador boarded a plane in Canberra
bound for Singapore via Melbourne.
The move came 24 hours after Australia's ambassador to Jakarta, Bill
Farmer, a former head of the Immigration Department, was summoned to the
Indonesian Foreign Ministry to receive a formal protest.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yuri Thamrin said its envoy was being called
back to Jakarta for "consultations". "It is not a permanent recall, but it
is important because there are issues that need to be discussed over this
incident," he said.
Australia played down any suggestions the decision represented a change in
foreign policy regarding Indonesia's sovereignty over West Papua.
On Thursday, John Howard called Indonesian President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono and reassured him there was no change in policy and the visa
decision was based on individual cases under Australian law.
Foreign Minster Alexander Downer said yesterday he had explained to Dr
Wirajuda that the decision was a bureaucratic one, determined by an
assessment of individual cases.
"I pointed out to him that even if the Department of Immigration rejected
all the applications, then they could appeal to the Refugees Review
Tribunal and they could appeal to the Federal Court, they could ultimately
appeal to the High Court and this could take years," Mr Downer said.
The Indonesian Government offered to guarantee the safety of the group if
they returned.
The first of the asylum-seekers were flown to Perth late yesterday from
Christmas Island where they had been held in detention. They will be
resettled in Melbourne.
Jakarta claimed the DIMA decision was "baseless and without legal merit"
and reiterated its assertion the group were not being sought by
authorities and were not subject to persecution.
A DIMA spokesman said the decision to grant the three-year protection
visas was made by a senior DIMA bureaucrat with a legal background after
interviews with the 42 West Papuans and their advocates.
A torture expert from the Immigration Detention Advisory Group, who
travelled with the DIMA team and interviewed the group on Christmas
Island, said the group's claims of torture were consistent and genuine.
Paris Aristotle, who is also Director of the Victorian Foundation for
Survivors of Torture, said the Papuans had described being imprisoned,
beaten and tortured.
"What they were describing and how they were describing it was very
consistent with other past experiences of other experiences of persecution
in other countries, both within our own region and in other parts of the
world as well," Mr Aristotle said.
"I thought the group had strong and consistent claims."
DIMA officials reviewed analysis of the situation in Indonesia, drawing on
the annual US State Department Country Report on Human Rights, which cited
torture, killings and "other serious human rights abuses in Papua".
The DIMA spokesman said no consideration had been given to the diplomatic
impact of the decision.
Opposition foreign affairs spokesman Kevin Rudd said the Government had
his bipartisan support on the matter and said it was regrettable Indonesia
had recalled the ambassador.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Age (Melbourne)
Visa decision tension spreads
By Mark Forbes
March 26, 2006
Indonesia's military chief says Australian coastal patrols helped 43
Papuan asylum seekers reach Cape York.
The allegation casts a a cloud over plans to upgrade security ties, amid
spreading anger over Canberra's granting of protection visas.
In West Papua, independence campaigners applauded the decision. They said
some students involved in violent protests against the Freeport goldmine
had fled to Papua New Guinea, where they planned to seek asylum in
Australia. They told The Sunday Age hundreds of other Papuans were also
likely to flee.
The reports come amid rising tension between Indonesia and Australia,
after Canberra granted protection visas to 42 of the asylum seekers.
The asylum seekers, who landed by boat on Cape York in January, claim
genocide by Indonesian security forces in West Papua, a former Dutch
colony that Jakarta forcibly took over ahead of a 1969 UN-backed vote
widely seen as rigged.
Yesterday Australian Democrats senator Natasha Stott Despoja claimed human
rights groups were investigating reports that up to 16 students were
murdered by Indonesian security forces.
But protest and church leaders in Papua said the allegations were
incorrect. One student leader said SMS messages had claimed eight bodies
were found near the university. The Papuan head of the Indonesian Human
Rights Commission, Albert Rumbekwan, said investigators had visited the
site and found nothing.
But the senator said she had information from activists that 16 bodies
were found in forest near the scene of recent student riots in which four
police and an Indonesian air force officer were stoned to death by
protesters.
Indonesia has bolstered paramilitary police numbers in the province since
riots against the US-owned Freeport mine, raising fears of more bloodshed
as security forces launch reprisals.
Senator Stott Despoja said her source, whom she would not name, claimed 16
university students were found dead in the forest near Cendrawasih
University in Abepura, on the outskirts of the provincial capital
Jayapura.
"The report's sources are reliable but are not prepared to be named to
protect their own safety," she said.
But Aloysius Renuaren, the Papua director of the Indonesian human rights
watchdog Elsham, said the deaths were only rumours sweeping the province.
Prime Minister John Howard yesterday moved to defuse the tense stand-off
between Australia and Indonesia.
On Friday, Indonesia recalled its ambassador to Australia, Mohammad Hamzah
Thayeb, in protest against the visa decision. It has revived intense
anti-Australian feeling among Indonesian hardliners who have called for
sanctions against Australia and a cut in military ties.
Mr Howard said yesterday he understood the strong reaction, and Australia
in no way disputed Indonesia's sovereignty over West Papua.
"The reaction of the Indonesian Government is understandable," Mr Howard
said.
"When President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono telephoned me some weeks ago, I
told him that the status of the 43 West Papuans would be determined in
accordance with Australian law.
"Australia strongly supports Indonesia's sovereignty over West Papua and
that policy will not change."
The leader of the Freeport protests, Jefri Pagawak, said demonstrators
would attempt to re-impose a blockade to halt Freeport's operations.
Air Chief Marshal Djoko Suyanto said Australia was discriminatory in its
handling of the Papuans, compared with bids by Iranians to reach
Australian shores. He claimed to the Jakarta Post that Australian patrols
had prevented the Iranians from reaching the country.
"The route leading from Jayapura to Christmas Island is very rough. No one
can get to the island easily, unless Australia prepared assistance for
them," Air Chief Marshal Djoko said.
A military spokesman could not provide evidence of Australian assistance.
As part of planned closer military links, Foreign Minister Alexander
Downer last month proposed naval patrols with Indonesia to combat illegal
fishing and other criminal activities, including people smuggling.
The Indonesian Government has said co-operation against illegal migration
will now be curtailed. The asylum decision proved Australian elements
supported Papuan independence, it said.
The president of the West Papua National Authority, Edison Waromi, who
organised the asylum seekers' voyage, praised Australia for making a
humanitarian decision.
"Actually, these people are just a handful of the people who experienced
bad treatment. There are hundred of thousands more," he said.
-- With Jason Koutsoukis, Agencies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Age (Melbourne)
Opinion
Australia's confusion on West Papua
March 27, 2006
-- Canberra must distance itself from the abusive military in the
province, writes Damian Kingsbury.
Australia's decision to grant 42 West Papuan asylum seekers temporary
protection has put the relationship with Indonesia under its most serious
strain since the East Timor debacle of 1999. It has also highlighted
contradictions in Australia's policy towards Indonesia.
The withdrawal of Indonesia's ambassador and associated harsh words are a
serious diplomatic gesture and cannot be underestimated. However, they
also have to be understood as speaking to Indonesia's "nationalist" and
pro-army (TNI) hardliners, who would accept nothing less from their
otherwise reformist president.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is trying to bring the TNI under
genuine civilian control, which it is resisting. The TNI's position in
West Papua, and the future status of the territory, is the test case in
this contest and in large part is behind the recent deterioration in the
situation in the former Dutch colony.
Yudhoyono's closeness to Australia works against him when dealing with the
hardliners and could damage his cautious but clear reform agenda —
including a possible negotiated settlement of the West Papua problem. His
Government therefore has to be seen to be critical of Australia.
But Jakarta is also genuinely annoyed that Canberra's decision to accept
the asylum seekers has created new domestic and international problems
over West Papua. Apart from anything else, it regards Australia as
inconsistent, and when it comes to Australian support for the TNI this is
correct.
The already parlous political environment in West Papua has clearly
worsened in recent months. The escape by the asylum seekers was both an
indication of this and intended, by them, to highlight it. The recent riot
over the giant Freeport gold and copper mine, which left dead four police
and a military intelligence officer, was another.
There have also been other demonstrations and riots against the elections
on 10 and 11 March for the governors of the now-divided province. Jakarta
had promised to address West Papua's many political and economic problems
with the granting of special autonomy in 2001. However, this has largely
been observed in the breach, with the division of the province being the
final betrayal.
The TNI has doubled the number of permanent troops in the province since
September. Their casual violence towards indigenous Papuans and a
requirement to fund up to three-quarters of their budget from local
sources — both legal and illegal — has worsened the local security
environment.
In December the TNI's commander in West Papua, Major-General Mahidin
Simbolon — who was deeply involved in East Timor's violence in 1999 —
confirmed that local soldiers and police had been paid $US26.6 million
between 1998 and 2004 by Freeport for protection. Such protection
frequently involves human rights abuses.
Australia's recognition of the asylum claims highlights its own
contradictory policy towards Indonesia. The decision officially confirms
the asylum seekers' claims of continuing human rights abuses in the
territory — a long record that includes the 2001 murder by the Indonesian
special forces, Kopassus, of Papuan leader Theys Eluay. Yet last year
Australia formally renewed training links with Kopassus.
Australia's military links with Indonesia, and the proposed security
treaty, is the sort of papering over of such contradictions that led to
the fall-out between Australia and Indonesia over East Timor. It remains a
policy the longer-term costs of which are much greater than any claimed
short-term benefits.
Australia's contradictory stance towards the TNI does not assist Yudhoyono
in his efforts towards military reform, complicates Indonesia's internal
political processes and leaves most Australians wondering why successive
governments have insisted on supporting such a corrupt and brutal
military. A more appropriate policy would be for Australia to refuse to
deal with the TNI until it is clearly under civilian authority.
Until Australia adopts a consistent policy towards Indonesia, problems
over Australia's legal obligations and moral intentions will continue. In
the meantime, Australia's engagement with the Indonesian military only
helps to sustain its unreconstructed, brutal and corrupt practices.
-- Associate Professor Damien Kingsbury is director of international and
community development at Deakin University. He is author of The Politics
of Indonesia (Oxford).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Australian
Opinion
Harold Crouch: Nothing to gain by antagonising Jakarta
-- Canberra is right to play down the mini-crisis of Papuan asylum-seekers
27mar06
Indonesians have reacted with outrage at the Australian decision to grant
temporary protection visas to 42 of the 43 Papuans who reached Cape York
in an outrigger canoe two months ago. By granting the visas, Australia is
acknowledging the credibility of the Papuans' claim that they fled "from
the intimidation of the killing and the persecution inflicted by
Indonesian authorities against us". The withdrawal of the Indonesian
ambassador in protest indicates that Australia faces a serious problem in
managing its relations with Indonesia. Still, it is premature to suggest
that Australia is moving towards the sort of breakdown that occurred
during the East Timor crisis of 1999.
Since the loss of East Timor in 1999, Indonesia has been obsessed with the
possibility of national disintegration. In fact, there are no serious
separatist pressures in most of Indonesia. Armed separatist movements have
been active since 1999 in only two provinces - Aceh and Papua - which
together make up about 3 per cent of Indonesia's population. In both
cases, the mainstream military opposed compromises with rebels and
preferred to concentrate on "eliminating" them through military action.
In Aceh, after much bloodshed over many years, a peace agreement that
promises to integrate former rebels into a democratic political process,
was finally reached last August in Helsinki.
It is important to remember that leading members of the peace camp now
occupy top positions in the Indonesian Government. President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono and Vice President Jusuf Kalla both played important
roles in this process long before they attained their present offices,
while Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda was Indonesia's negotiator in the
first round of talks in 2000.
Progress has been much less marked in Papua where the small Free Papua
Organisation, with its obsolete weapons, launches occasional isolated
attacks but has never constituted a serious military challenge. Discontent
with Jakarta, however, is widespread. Even local government officials in
casual conversations often refer to the central government as "Indonesia",
as though Papua is not part of Indonesia.
Following the fall of president Suharto in 1998, a non-violent
independence movement led by Theys Eluay garnered substantial support
until Eluay was murdered by Special Forces soldiers after being invited to
a dinner at their base in 2001. Non-violent activists have often been
imprisoned for symbolic acts of resistance such as singing the Papuan
anthem and raising the Papuan flag.
Among them was the leader of the current batch of refugees, Herman
Wanggai, who served a year in prison for this crime. In recent times much
unrest in Papua has focused on the exploitation of resources by the giant
Freeport gold and copper mine and the failure of the Indonesian Government
to implement fully a special autonomy law adopted in 2001.
It is in this context that Indonesian officials are now talking as though
Australia's granting of visas to Papuan refugees is tantamount to
challenging Indonesian sovereignty over Papua. They claim that Australia
"vigorously" rejects applicants for asylum from other countries but rushes
to grant asylum to Papuans, evidence, they suggest, that Australia must
have some hidden motives (although in fact Australia provides asylum to
thousands of non-Papuans from all over the world).
The chief security minister, Admiral Widodo Adisutjipto, spoke of
"speculation about the presence of elements in Australia who support the
separatist movement in Papua" and the chief of intelligence revealed the
"involvement" of unnamed Australian non-government organisations in the
clash between students and police near Jayapura a fortnight ago. Behind
these attitudes is the persistent, if usually unstated, belief that
Australia somehow plotted East Timor's exit from Indonesia and is now
looking for a way to implement a similar scenario for Papua.
Indonesian officials have attempted to assure the recent refugees that
they can safely return home. The military commander says the military was
not searching for them before their flight and the Government has
"guaranteed their security" if they decide to return.
But the problem with guarantees of security is that the past behaviour of
the security forces has made it difficult for Papuans to have much
confidence in such promises. Although the murderers of Eluay were
eventually brought to court in 2003, they seemed proud of their
achievement, their sentences were short (their leader, a
lieutenant-colonel received three years) and the then army chief of staff,
General Ryamizard Ryacudu, hailed them as "national heroes" for their
defence of Indonesian sovereignty, an attitude that reflected the
sentiments of many military officers. Until Indonesia's military reformers
can bring about a transformation of military culture, it will not be easy
to convince Papuan dissidents that their rights are likely to be
respected.
Australia and Indonesia have experienced regular mini-crises in their
relations that usually prompt observers to declare that ties have reached
their lowest point since East Timor. Often the substantial issue in such
crises - Schapelle Corby, the Bali Nine or Papuan asylum-seekers - are
irresolvable. We don't have much choice but to accept that there will be
differences in approach.
But that doesn't mean that such differences can't be managed. During the
past few years, the multiple strands connecting the two countries have
created beneficial bonds at many levels that neither would want to see
broken.
Without doubting the genuineness of Indonesian protests on the visa issue,
it is likely that Yudhoyono and his advisers are focusing their attention
on a more pressing domestic problem. Next month the Indonesian parliament
is expected to vote on a law to implement the Aceh peace agreement. The
bill is facing strong opposition from nationalist elements in the
parliament, the same people who are most vocal on the issue of Papuans
gaining refugee status in Australia. Even former presidents Megawati
Sukarnoputri and Abdurrahman Wahid are among those who believe the
Government is making too many compromises on Aceh.
If the Government upsets the nationalists by soft-pedalling on the Papuan
issue, it is not impossible that it could find it harder to pass the Aceh
law relatively intact, with the risk that the peace achieved in Helsinki
could be threatened.
The Australian Government, with bipartisan support, is right to downplay
the present crisis. One lesson of the East Timor experience is that, while
maintaining our position, we should avoid statements that stir up public
opinion in Indonesia and make it more difficult for Indonesia's leaders to
preserve the warm relations that have been achieved in recent years.
-- Harold Crouch, a former director of the International Crisis Group's
Indonesia project, is an emeritus professor in the research school of
Pacific and Asian studies at the Australian National University in
Canberra.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Australian
Opinion
Richard Chauvel: Papua crucial to Indonesia
Why Jakarta is so sensitive about independence movements
March 28, 2006
Indonesia's extreme sensitivity and depth of feeling about Papua is
reflected in its decision to recall its ambassador.
Papua's economic importance to Indonesia is symbolised by the
controversial Freeport gold and copper mine, which is Indonesia's largest
corporate taxpayer, worth $US1.2 billion ($1.7 billion) last year.
Indonesian president Sukarno's statement in 1963 that his country was not
complete without Papua conveys something of Papua's importance in
Indonesian nationalist thinking. Sukarno successfully used the
incorporation of Papua as a focus in the struggle for national unity. It
remains thus.
There are no significant (non-Papuan) Indonesian leaders or parties that
support Papuan independence and there are many who have grave reservations
about any form of autonomy.
The Indonesian parliamentarians' protests and criticism of the granting of
visas for 42 Papuans have come from across the political spectrum, not
just from the outspoken nationalists.
One of the reasons for Indonesia's sensitivity about Papua is the
confusion surrounding Jakarta's policies in Papua. President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono has made numerous statements about his Government's
commitment to find a political solution to the Papua conflict on the basis
of the 2001 special autonomy law. The successful negotiations about Aceh
have given the commitment to resolve Papua credibility and momentum.
He received strong support in Papua in the 2004 elections. His election
generated considerable optimism among Papuans.
However, Yudhoyono has done little to clarify the confusion,
contradictions and divisiveness in the Papua policy he inherited from
Megawati Sukarnoputri.
Is his Government committed to the implementation of special autonomy or
will it continue Megawati's policy to create two or more provinces in
Papua?
Megawati's decision to partition Papua was motivated by a fear that if the
special autonomy law was implemented, it would empower a Papuan elite in
Jayapura that would use it as a basis for a further step towards
independence.
The Yudhoyono Government's policy decisions of the past couple of months
have made a political resolution more difficult. The decision to hold
elections for governor in the newly created province of West Papua
indicates that the Government is determined to pursue the partition of
Papua.
This decision undermines and marginalises the Papuan People's Assembly,
the institutional centrepiece of special autonomy, which the Government
established as the representative forum for Papuans. The decision
disregarded the assembly's recommendation in March this year that the
election for governor not proceed as the assembly had found there was
little Papuan support for the new province. The assembly appealed to the
Government for a comprehensive and open dialogue to resolve Papua's
problems. Senior government officials from Jakarta, including the Security
Minister Widodo, who visited Jayapura the day after the Abepura riots
(March15-16), refused to hold substantive discussions with members of the
provincial parliament and Papuan religious leaders.
This supports the argument in last week's briefing update from the
International Crisis Group that the Government is shutting down dialogue
with Papuans.
Relations between the Papuan elite and the Jakarta Government have never
been easy, but Papuan trust in Jakarta is at a low point. The brutal
killing of five members of the security forces in the Abepura riots
reflects something of the depth of feeling among Papuans, their
desperation and the degree of alienation from Indonesia.
Canberra's decision to grant Papuan asylum-seekers visas has exacerbated
the Indonesian Government's anxieties about Papua and heightened
suspicions about Australian interests and intentions. Jakarta's statement
notes that: "The [visa] decision justifies speculations that there are
elements in Australia that support separatist movement in Papua and in
this regard the Government of Australia has not done anything to them."
The head of the National Intelligence Agency, Syamsir Siregar, alleged
that non-governmental organisations involved in the riots in Abepura
earlier this month had links in Australia.
It is not only the alleged activities of Australian NGOs that are
suspected by Indonesian officials. The head of the armed forces, Djoko
Suyanto, suggested that the asylum-seekers could not have reached
Australia without the assistance of Australian patrols and that
asylum-seekers from the Middle East are treated differently.
These Indonesian suspicions relate directly to Australia's role in the
1999 international intervention in East Timor. Many Indonesians, inside
and outside the Government and the military, believe, mistakenly, that an
independent East Timor was the preferred strategic outcome for Australia.
They suspect that Australia has the same objective with respect to Papua.
Frequent and definitive Australian government statements of support for
Indonesian sovereignty in Papua evoke the Indonesian response: "That's
what you said about East Timor."
Australia has a vital interest in Indonesia peacefully resolving the
conflict in Papua. Indonesians and Papuans need international support to
help reduce Indonesia's dependence on violence in its governance in Papua
and to accommodate Papuans, their interests and values in the government
of the province. The agreement on Aceh is a model of what is politically
possible.
Richard Chauvel, a senior lecturer at the school of social sciences at
Victoria University, is author of Constructing Papuan Nationalism:
History, Ethnicity and Adaptation. www.eastwestcenterwashington.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Canberra Times
Monday, March 27, 2006
Opinion
Howard must answer allegations of Christian bias on visas
By Paul Varsanyi, Kambah
[Note: There was no information about the author with this report]
Prime Minister John Howard ("Labor backs Govt on Papuans", March 26, p6)
must answer this question put to him by the Indonesian Government: why
give 42 mostly Christian refugees from West Papua access to temporary
protection visas while scores of Muslim refugees from the Middle East have
been turned away? The Indonesians will not forget the SIEVX tragedy in
October, 2001, when 353 lives were lost in waters being continuously
patrolled by Australian military planes and ships.
They will not forget the Tampa crisis or the children overboard affair
that also preceded the 2001 federal election - an election they still
believe to this day was won by a dirty campaign of racism and xenophobia
towards Muslims.
Moreover, they will not forget the Government's military involvement in
securing the annexation of Christian East Timor. Senior ADF officials have
since revealed that our elite SAS troops were clandestinely dispatched by
submarine to East Timor several months ahead of the vote for independence.
On June 9, 1999, Indonesian armed forces chief General Wiranto had
actually ordered naval and sea surveillance stepped up, risking an armed
clash with the Australian military.
Another problem for Mr Howard is that it is not the first time the
Government has singled out Christians for favourable visa decisions.
Just two days before the Government unveiled a new visa category in March
last year, it had revealed that it was reviewing the cases of about 30
Iraqi and Iranian detainees who had converted to Christianity while in
detention.
Questioned on ABC radio, Mr Howard deliberately side-stepped evidence
suggesting the Government had discriminated in favour of Christians, by
retorting that "there is no denominational religious specific clause in
the administration of our immigration policy".
Mr Howard has clearly got a lot of explaining to do to the Indonesian
Government, and there is no point in hiding behind the smokescreen that
the decision to grant visas to the West Papuans was made by DIMIA.
The last thing Australia needs is to be caught up in a religious war with
Indonesia, and the sooner Mr Howard renews ties with his Indonesian
counterpart, the sooner will the two governments be able to work towards
finding a solution to the security crisis in West Papua.
Reverend Dr Vincent Zankin, Rivett Good news at last In the first good
news for refugees during the Howard Government decade, 42 of the 43 West
Papuan boat people have been granted temporary visas on the basis,
according to Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone, of "whether the Papuans
would be persecuted" ("Indonesia recalls envoy over visas row", March 25,
p3).
To an Australian public thirsty for a lucid explanation of the perceived
strategic context within which this incident is being handled by the
Howard Government, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer reportedly offers the
following: "There will certainly be protests. people will say whatever
they want. This is a decision made in Australia in accordance with
Australian laws."
Is that all there is? Isn't it time for John Howard to explain to the
Australian public how it is that escapees from a country Australia
officially recognises as a democracy, and to which it funnels millions of
dollars of civil and military aid, can nevertheless apparently generate
circumstances which we find unacceptable? Can we not get an explanation of
how refugees from hell-holes such as Iraq and Afghanistan are turned away
on the high seas, while those from our neighbouring democracy are
accepted?
Surely the Australian public is mature enough to get the bad news that,
while Australia seeks to engage the world's largest Muslim nation state on
its own doorstep, and assists the slow passage of that country towards a
stable democracy not yet achieved, there remain in that country pockets of
repression which make our stomachs turn.
While Downer's response would readily satisfy the audiences of the
shock-jocks so favoured by himself and Howard for their "public
engagement", mainstream Australia is left breathless by the lack of
rationale.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jakarta Post.com
Editorial
March 27, 2006
Hasty diplomacy
Australia can be a difficult neighbor. The cultural divide often bruises
sensitivities which are compounded by ignorance and stupidity.
Though democracy has bridged some gaps, it has not made Indonesia and
Australia more passionate bedfellows.
We are again on the verge of another fissure. An unnecessary rift has been
caused by an issue which is not trivial, but certainly unworthy in
proportion to the reaction and potential damage it is causing.
Indonesians should feel disappointed by the Australian Immigration
Department's decision to issue temporary protection visas to 42 Papuans
seeking asylum.
Indonesian egos were bruised. There is a sense of betrayal by a neighbor
they have consciously made efforts to reconcile with over the past few
years.
"Those Aussies again!" was a remark heard around town. "We should show
them what Indonesia is made of," was another made amidst the sudden
nationalistic fervor.
But to turn what is effectively a fringe issue into one of national
animosity is like turning a dinner table talk on child rearing into a
vicious custody battle.
Diplomacy -- the most rationally based of political engagements -- is
being hijacked by emotion.
The situation required a firm reaction from the Indonesian government. But
not to the scale of recalling Indonesia's ambassador to Canberra in
protest of visa issuance.
Instead of calming the situation, Jakarta has aggravated it. A diplomatic
spat turned into a political crisis between two nations who really have
nothing to quarrel about.
The allegations of abuse made by our Papuan brothers seeking asylum may,
as the government claims, be utterly false. But by reacting in such a way
Indonesia is actually raising suspicion among that something is amiss in
Papua.
Historically, Indonesia's own conduct, neglect and persistent exploitation
of the area also reduces any climate of confidence that Jakarta is engaged
in best practices in the region.
Ridiculous though the allegations of abuse are said to be, time will
inevitably reveal the merit of their claims. Throwing a fit, such as the
president is doing by refusing to converse with his Australian
counterpart, will resolve nothing.
If or when they are eventually proven false, it will be Australia's onus
to realize they granted political leniency to a group of people seeking
economic refuge.
If Indonesians were perplexed at the Australian fervor over the Schappele
Corby case, then it is our turn to feel ashamed at our own incredulous
behavior. It is revealing not of Australia's attitude towards Indonesia,
but of Indonesia's own psychological shortcomings.
A lack of self-confidence which manifests in a habit of blaming others for
one's own deficiencies.
A siege mentality based on nationalist dogma which is dependent on what
others think rather than what we think of ourselves.
If Indonesia thinks itself a great nation, the mutters of small voices
should not be of concern. Into everyone's life a little rain must fall,
and the asylum issue is no more than a light shower unworthy of even an
umbrella.
Indonesia cannot change, let alone dictate, how Australia views Indonesia.
Each nation has its own unique characteristics. That is something both
nations have to learn to live with and develop a working relationship to
overcome.
Only when Indonesia has demonstrable proof that the visa issuance is part
of a concerted effort to support separatism and agitate Papua's
independence should diplomatic ties be jarred the way they have.
But as of Sunday, there has been no such allegation. Only emotional
remarks of disappointment that Canberra did not do what Jakarta wanted it
to.
This spat must be resolved now. Delay only augments acrimony amidst a
hungry public eager to blame someone.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Prime Minister John Howard must
show statesmanship. Both should cease actions which can aggravate the
situation further. A show of goodwill by maintaining Australia's
ambassador in Jakarta will hasten reconciliation.
This row profits no one accept hate-mongering politicians.
The relationship of two great nations should not be dependent upon
unfounded claims by a group of people with political motives. Let us not
forget that Australia was one of the first to extend its help during
Indonesia's time of need after the tsunami. We are confident it will be
there again when needed.
We often ask Australia to understand Indonesia. The question is, do we
truly understand our neighbors to the south?
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.