[Kabar-Irian] News: June 17-22 2006

["Admin" <admin@irja.org>]

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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

June 17-22 2006
KABAR IRIAN NEWS

TOPICS

* INDONESIA: Papua issue should be resolved by Jakarta
* Little justice in mutual respect
* Grave concerns for a human rights advocate arrested in Papua
* Military to stay at Freeport
* Freeport joins Fortune 500 elite
* PNG: Says no more Papuan refugees
* Indon military to secure US gold mine
* Howard should reverse Papua blunder
* PNG open to terrorist attacks from accross the Papua Border: commander
* Papuan asylum seekers unhappy in Australia: Indonesian legislator
* Japanese citizen detained by Jayapura immigration
* Indonesia urges Australia to review Papua refugee decision
* Papua, Bashir can't be compared: Downer
* Australia and RI: Facing off on the the flip side
* Indonesia pact should be vetted by Senate
* BP invests in Papua (Audio Link)
* Is a presidential instruction on Papua really necessary?
* Indonesia: Military Business Threatens Human Rights
* Papuans rally, call for man to be granted asylum
* Papuan governor election bogged down by infighting
* Coalition division delays migration bill
* Backbench revolt on refugees and stem cells
* Papuans give legislation marching orders
* Howard's key to asylum deadlock
* Indonesia a helpful partner in our border protection
* Australia's PM: Indonesia Security Treaty Not A Priority

- ---

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/programs/s1665176.htm

INDONESIA: Papua issue should be resolved by Jakarta

Even as the Australian Government finds dissent within its ranks over the
proposed changes to Australia's refugee law, the
Opposition has accused the Howard administration of appeasing Indonesia. An
Indonesian parliamentary delegation visited
Canberra this week, so what do the MPs make of the proposed new law?


Presenter/Interviewer: Sen Lam
Speakers: Dr Mohamad S. Hikam, leader, visiting parliamentary delegation,
Indonesia

HIKAM: It is up to the government and the parliamentarians of Australia in
determining that law. What we say in this respect
is that we appreciate whatever efforts being done, both in Indonesia and
also in Australia, with securing towards improvement
of our relations, including, in terms of the Papua issue.

LAM: Some Australian politicians say that Canberra is trying to appease
Jakarta with this proposed law?

HIKAM: Well, that's an opinion that remains in Australia. I think we have
also similar concern that somehow, Indonesia is
being always pressured by Australian government.

LAM: If, as you say, it's a domestic matter for Australia to get right its
immigration law ... the Papua issue, for instance,
that Australia was just merely observing international mores in granting
protection visas to these forty-two Papuan
asylum-seekers, and yet there was such an outcry in Jakarta over the issue?

HIKAM: Ya, as far as the law is concerned, you know I couldn't agree more.
But then, also, we have to realise that it also
touches the sensitivities and Indonesian democracy and people. So I think
relations should not be only based on understanding
on the legal matter, but also political thing, like (Abu Bakar) Bashir for
example...

LAM: Indeed, I was about to come to that, just as some Indonesian
politicians and sections of Indonesian society were upset
over the papuan asylum-seekers, many Australians are dismayed by this
week's release of Abu Bakar Bashir from jail - the man
many see as the inspiration for the Bali 2002 bombings - Do you see the
parallel there - that just as Jakarta has to follow
the law courts' ruling to release Abu Bakar Bashir, so too Canberra had to
observe international mores in protecting or
granting protection to these Papuan asylum-seekers?

HIKAM: There is some parallel which is what I say the "sensitivity" between
the two countries and two people. But there is
also a very serious difference, which is, that in the case of Papuan
asylum-seekers, you know, they're really not admitting
or respecting the recognition of our sovereignty and also integrity, while
in Indonesia, it stopped in the use of the rule of
law in the country. So I would say that every cloud has a silver lining,
meaning that we have to learn from this very, very
fragile understanding and to have a deeper understanding. And we work
together, for example, in terms of terrorist
elimination, I think Indonesia and Australia should become more and more
serious about it.

LAM: But if you make Papua province a better place for the Papuans to live
in, including no more human rights abuses from the
TNI, the Indonesian military, then this whole Papuan asylum-seeker issue
will go away, because people will not actually want
to leave?

HIKAM: I couldn't agree more with that issue, that's why we repeatedly say,
Papua is an Indonesian case. Don't get involved
in that, because we invite all kinds of assistance from others, including
criticism, but when it comes to the integrity, and
also sovereignty of the nation, then it's a totally different case.

LAM: You, I understand have recently been in Papua province?

HIKAM: Yes, Yes.

LAM: What is your assessment of the situation?

HIKAM: First of all, just following your argument, that there is a concern
in terms of discrepancy of wealth, also the
problem of human rights, and also the sensitivity of local culture. And we
realise that that's what has to be addressed
perfectly, and also systematically by the Indonesian government. That is my
view about Papua right now.


- ---

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/little-justice-in-mutual-respect/2006
/06/17/1149964783623.html

Little justice in mutual respect

Terry Lane
PERSPECTIVES
June 18, 2006


In the past few days we have had visits from Indonesian and Singaporean
politicians, exciting the usual platitudes about the
need for mutual respect for each other's laws and institutions.

On the subject of the risible punishment of Abu Bakir Bashir, the
Indonesian politician leading his delegation says we must
respect each other's laws. Our own foreign minister says that decisions of
Indonesian courts have to be accepted.

The Prime Minister of Singapore, Lee Hsien Loong, got the full honoured
guest treatment with a 19-gun salute and he tells us
we have to respect his country's execution of drug traffickers. Our own
Prime Minister diplomatically describes it as a
"difference of opinion on sensitive matters".

Pragmatically there is nothing Australia can do about either Indonesia or
Singapore's "justice" systems. We're not going to
go to war against them to impose our scruples on them. Not unless the
Americans discover that they have lots of oil, then we
might.

But the idea that we should respect their systems is absurd. We are under
no more obligation to respect the legal systems of
Indonesia and Singapore than we were ever obliged to respect the legal
institutions of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. And
things get worse.

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone says in defence of the Government's
proposed border protection laws that "it is
indisputable that we have to take into account the concerns of Indonesia".

Really? This is a novel idea that a free nation bordering a state that
treats its citizens barbarously should be influenced
in its asylum policies.

If the Indonesian regime is brutalising its reluctant citizens in Papua are
we to help them do it by denying those in danger
an avenue of escape and a place of asylum? Have we reached the point where,
as the Opposition claims, Indonesia sets our
refugee policy?

Australia is not the first nation in history to find itself in a dangerous
environment. Sweden, during World War II, had to
balance self-preservation against humanitarian obligations. Its record may
not be perfect, but by remaining aloof and staying
true to its own values it did help thousands of refugees escape.

After decades of turning a blind eye to the horrors of Indonesian rule in
Timor, Aceh and Papua what have we got? If we now,
as the Government proposes, doom the people of Papua to the same experience
as the Timorese, will it make us more secure?
Will the Indonesians love us more? Will the Indonesian citizens who
struggle for human rights respect us?

Respect seems to be a one-way street in these parts. We redefine our
borders out of respect for Indonesia. We presume to give
away the freedom of the Papuans to show how much we respect Indonesian
sensibilities.

We are an outpost of European civilisation in a hostile environment where
our laws and traditions are alien. We should stay
true to our inherited principles while minding our own business. The Prime
Minister of Singapore or Indonesian parliamentary
delegations should not be either welcomed or hectored. Put bluntly, they
are not like us. And they have a legitimate
complaint against us. As long as we play the role of Tonto to America's
Lone Ranger the contempt, not respect, will be
mutual.

- ---

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/bulletins/rnzi/200606170535/1086484e


Grave concerns for a human rights advocate arrested in Papua

Posted at 5:35am on 17 Jun 2006

There are grave concerns for the safety of a West Papuan non-violent
activist and human rights advocate currently in police
custody in the Indonesian province of Papua.

Jonah Wenda was arrested on Thursday by local Police in the West Koya area,
about 30 kilometres from the Papua New Guinea
border.

The 35 years-old was later transferred to Jayapura where he is currently
being held.

At the time of his arrest Mr Wenda was engaged in humanitarian work and
human rights investigation.

He made a mobile phone plea to alert friends but his phone has now gone
quiet.

Reports say Mr Wenda is sick and needs urgent medical attention.

Human Rights workers have been denied access and remain concerned about his
health and well being.

Copyright © 2006 Radio New Zealand International

- ---

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailnational.asp?fileid=20060619.H02&irec=2


Military to stay at Freeport
Tb. Arie Rukmantara, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta



The Indonesian Military (TNI) says it will continue guarding PT Freeport
Indonesia in the restive province of Papua, despite
accusations of human rights abuses against local people.

Protecting the American gold and copper mine was listed as part of the
military's duties in the 2004 presidential decree on
national vital objects, said Lt. Col. Inf. Siburian, deputy intelligence
assistant at the Trikora military command overseeing
Papua.

"We have to protect this object because it is not only a state asset but it
also involves foreign interests," he told a
discussion here Friday, attended by police officers as well as Freeport and
Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry officials.

Siburian warned that should security be harmed at Freeport, the U.S.
government would almost certainly send security forces
to intervene.

Freeport is a subsidiary of the New Orleans-based mining giant Freeport
McMoran Copper and Gold Inc., which is listed on the
New York Stock Exchange. The Indonesian government owns less than 10
percent of the company.

"If we fail to protect it, don't blame us if foreign forces come into the
company's area," Siburian said, citing the 2002
shooting near the mine that killed two American teachers. FBI agents were
then sent in to help find the killers.

In January this year the FBI and Papua Police arrested 12 rebels over the
incident, including Anthonius Wamang who had been
indicted for the murder in an in absentia trial by a U.S. grand jury in
2004.

Siburian said TNI has prepared 12 contingency plans to counter possible
security threats to Freeport, including terrorism and
separatism.

"We understand that terrorists often target American interests. Freeport is
prone to terrorist attacks," said Siburian, who
is a former military district commander in Mimika, home to the Grasberg
mine.

Papua Police deputy chief Brig. Gen. Max Donald Aer said his office and TNI
would stay inside the Freeport compound until
after the company was able to boost the capacity of its internal security
guards.

"Gradually we'll leave the internal security role to the company and will
only secure areas outside its concessions," he
said.

Max said the police would launch Amole (peace) Operation I to secure the
company's assets and promote the company's internal
security, but declined to discuss the details of the six-month operation.

Currently some 700 military soldiers are protecting Freeport and an
additional 350 troops will be deployed there to back up
the Amole operation, which will involve 1,098 security personnel, including
630 National Police and 118 from the Papua police
office.

Mudakir, an advisor to the energy and mineral resources minister, said
Freeport was one of 270 vital national objects listed
by his office.

"However, the company is the only vital national object that has not yet
been able to manage its internal security
independently," he said.

Freeport security manager Mangasa R. Saragih, a retired one-star Army
general, denied reports the company gave cash payments
to soldiers and police deployed to the mine.

The troops only received the necessary equipment and vehicles to carry out
their patrol duties, he said.

Freeport recently drew strong criticism after the New York Times revealed
that from 1998 to 2004 the company paid military
and police nearly $20 million in security money, which activists considered
bribes.

Critics say Freeport badly needs the police and TNI to prevent possible
attacks from local Papuans who reject its presence,
while the police and TNI personnel need the company to provide extra
income, both for their cash-strapped organizations and
themselves individually.

Human rights watchdog Elsham Papua director Aloysius Renwarin and local
tribal leaders have opposed the military presence at
Freeport and urged for its withdrawal.

"The military presence will only add to its long human rights violation
record. What we need now is to find a way to empower
local residents living near Freeport areas to willingly safeguard the
company's facilities," Aloysius said.

- ---

http://www.neworleanscitybusiness.com/viewStory.cfm?recID=15873

Freeport joins Fortune 500 elite
by Deon Roberts
06/19/2006

Despite predicting “significantly lower” production, Freeport-McMoRan
Copper & Gold CEO Richard Adkerson said strong
commodity prices for copper and gold will result in strong performance for
the company this year.
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. delighted New Orleans economic
development officials after its 2005 performance gave the
company Fortune 500 status.

With a 496 percent increase in income and a 75 percent increase in revenue,
Freeport became the second company in New Orleans
with the distinction joining Entergy Corp.

Mark Drennen, president of Greater New Orleans Inc., a regional economic
development agency, said having two Fortune 500
companies in New Orleans helps him market the city to outside businesses.

“To have now two Fortune 500 companies both active in the community is a
big plus,” Drennen said.

Freeport officials said it was a record year for the company, which mines
copper, gold and silver from the Grasberg mine in
Indonesia.

“2005 really was an exceptional year. We produced 1.46 billion pounds of
copper and 2.8 million ounces of gold, and we had
$1.55 million in operating cash flow and a net income of $934 million.
Those are all records,” said spokesman Bill Collier.

Net income in 2005 was $934.6 million on revenues of $4.2 billion, up from
income of $156.8 billion on revenues of $2.4
billion the previous year.

Freeport said its strong performance was due to the return of normal mining
operations in Grasberg after spending 2004
recovering from an October 2003 rock slippage that killed eight people.

The company spent 2004 recovering from the slippage by mining waste and
low-grade material as the pit was stabilized, Collier
said.

As a result, Freeport mined metals in 2005 that would have been mined in
2004, which made 2005 an exceptional year, Collier
said.

Richard Adkerson, president and CEO, said 2005 was an “unusual year”
and production volumes in 2006 “will be significantly
lower.”

Adkerson said in 2006 the company expects to have sales of 1.3 billion
pounds of copper and 1.7 million ounces of gold.

However, he said strong commodity prices for copper and gold will result in
strong performance for the company in 2006.

“There’s currently a lot of volatility in the market, and we don’t
predict and don’t know where prices will go,” Adkerson
said. “But if prices remain strong we have a chance of continuing to have
an excellent year. What we’re about is not trying
to meet some rankings in Fortune 500. The objective of our company is to
earn returns for our shareholders.”

Freeport also landed on BusinessWeek’s list of top 50 public companies in
Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. Freeport ranked
No. 35 in the April report.

Some bad news landed in Freeport’s lap this month that caused the company
to adjust second quarter expectations for copper.
On June 5, the company announced it had hit a patch of ore at the Grasberg
mine with high clay content — essentially a zone
with lower concentrations of copper that will adversely affect production.
As a result, Freeport lowered second quarter
copper sales by 16 percent to 235 million pounds. Previous expectations
were 280 million pounds.

The company did not change gold sales expectations of 275,000 ounces.

Collier said he could not quantify how much clay was involved, but it was
enough to affect the processing of the ore and to
cause officials to reduce production expectations.

He said the clay incident is too small to impact world copper prices.

As to Freeport’s future in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, Adkerson
admitted, “we do receive questions from shareholders
about being headquartered in New Orleans. Our business is centered around
our copper and gold mine that’s in Indonesia. New
Orleans is not a city with other mining company’s located here. So it’s
a natural question for people to ask.

“New Orleans is our home. The traditions of our company are tied in to
this community and this state. We all love the city.
We’ll have to react to how circumstances develop in the future.”•

- ---

http://www.abc.net.au/ra/pacbeat/stories/s1667043.htm

Last Updated 20/06/2006

PNG: Says no more Papuan refugees

Papua New Guinea's Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare says he will not
accept any requests from Australia to process West
Papuan asylum seekers in PNG. Several years ago Australia started using
offshore processing centres in both PNG and Nauru as
part of its Pacific Solution program to curb the number of people seeking
asylum in Australia. PNG's new new stance on
Australia 's West Papuan asylum seekers was announced last week by the PM.

TIRIMAN: Powes Parkop. Meanwhile PNG's minister of foreign affairs, Sir
Rabbie Namaliu says the issue between Indonesia and
Australia is a very sensitive one and PNG does not want to get involved in
it.

Presenter/Interviewer: Caroline Tiriman
Speakers: Powes Parkop, PNG Human rights lawyer and West Papuan supporter.
Sir Rabie Namilu, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
PNG.

TIRIMAN: Sir Michael Somare's statement will definitely mean a major set
back for any plans by Australia to process asylum
seekers on PNG's Manus Island especially after Australia agreed to review
its immigration laws to ensure all future boat
arrivals are processed offshore - in an attempt to heal a diplomatic
squabble with Indonesia.

The rift between Australia and Indonesia erupted several months ago after
Australia granted 42 West Papuan asylum seekers,
protection visas allowing them to stay in Australia.

PNG Human rights lawyer and West Papuan supporter, Powes Parkop says he
welcomes Sir Michael Somare's announcement.

PARKOP: It's good news because from the beginning we always maintained that
the processing centre in PNG's, especially Manus
province, was illegal.

It was illegal because you cannot detain a person here in PNG without being
charged. And those persons were taken from Tampa
and transferred to Manus Island. They were not charged for any particular
offence, so they could not be detained here in PNG
or in Manus under the law in PNG.

And secondly we welcome the news because it places the responsibility then
to Australian government. They have an obligation
under the refugee convention and its protocol to consider applicants who
come to their jurisdiction.

They cannot pass their responsibility to a third country or a fourth
country, they can't do that. And their attempt to
isolate mainland Australia from potential refugees is also I would argue,
it's unlawful and also immoral.

NAMALIU: You may be aware that we obviously share an agreement with
Indonesia on refugees coming over from across the border,
and on matters like this we obviously have to consult each other on those
that cross the border from the Indonesian side.

But in relation to Papuans seeking refuge in Australia, because of the
sensitive nature of the situation it will be difficult
for us to do it unless of course after consultations with Indonesia it's
agreed that's possible.

But in the current circumstances because of the controversial nature of it,
insofar as the discussions that are going on
between Australia and Indonesia, it's an extremely sensitive matter that
Papua New Guinea is very much aware of and therefore
in that light that the Prime Minister has made those comments that at this
point PNG unless consultations with Indonesian
government are such that it is possible to do it, would not in the current
situation be in a position to accept them.

TIRIMAN: Sir Rabbie so what will now happen to the refugee processing
centre in Manus?

NAMALIU: Manus is there but it's for other refugees, other than Papuans.
There's another one in Nauru, so that's available
obviously.

TIRIMAN: Sir Rabbie Namaliu. While the West Papuan issue continues to
create diplomatic problems between Australia, PNG and
Indonesia, Powes Parkop suggests independence for Paua would solve the
issue.

PARKOP: Well ideally the West Papuans want independence, there's no doubt
about it. If there was a referendum conducted
tomorrow, a free and fair referendum unlike that fraud in 1969, I would say
99 per cent would vote for independence.

So ideally that would solve this problem. I mean PNG getting independence
in 1975, we haven't seen people migrating in large
amounts, fleeing the country to go to Australia. People are freely going to
Australia for study, working and so on under the
law.

So if West Papua get their independence I don't believe they will, people
will start fleeing to Australia.

- ---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Business/Indon-military-to-secure-US-gold-mine/2
006/06/19/1150569266145.html

Indon military to secure US gold mine


June 19, 2006 - 2:49PM


The Indonesian military will provide security to a massive US gold mine in
Papua province despite criticism, warning it could
be the target of terrorist or rebel attacks, a newspaper reported on
Monday.

The mine operated by Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc has long been a
sore point in ongoing tensions over Papuan
separatism.

Local people claim the mine is environmentally damaging and that they see
little of the revenue it generates.

Lieutenant Colonel Siburian, who helps oversee intelligence in the
far-eastern province, home to a decades-long separatist
insurgency, said if the military fails to protect Freeport's mine, the
United States may try to deploy its own forces to the
site.

"We have to protect (the Grasberg mine)," Siburian was quoted as saying by
The Jakarta Post.

He said as well as being an important foreign asset, the mine is also
partially owned by the Indonesian government.

New Orleans-based Freeport has been criticised by human rights
organisations for paying millions of dollars every year to the
notoriously corrupt and brutal military to protect the site.

The practice also sparked an inquiry by US government agencies earlier this
year.

"If we fail to protect (Grasberg), don't blame us if foreign forces come
into the company's area," Siburian was quoted as
saying, adding that it was not uncommon for terrorists to target American
interests.

The mine, believed to be the world's largest, has earned Freeport billions
of dollars since it began production in the early
1970s after the company signed a deal with the US-backed Indonesian
dictator Suharto.

© 2006 AP DIGITAL

- ---

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0606/S00404.htm

Howard should reverse Papua blunder
Tuesday, 20 June 2006, 8:32 pm
Press Release: Australian Green Party


Prime Minister John Howard should reverse the blunder of legislating for
West Papuan refugees to be banned from Australian
soil, Greens Leader Bob Brown said in Sydney today.

"There is no common ground between a Nauruan solution and processing
refugees in Australia. That given, the PM should look at
how to allay
Indonesian anxiety that Australia will simply be a receptacle for West
Papuans activists," Senator Brown said.

"Perhaps he should look at UN experts confirming Australia's dinkum
processing of refugees on our soil. This is not a Greens'
policy, but it's a helpful suggestion for a Prime Minister who has bungled
this issue from the outset by trying to appease
Jakarta," Senator Brown said.

- ---

http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/PNG-open-to-terrorist-attacks-commander
/2006/06/21/1150845212398.html

PNG open to terrorist attacks: commander

June 21, 2006 - 10:30AM


Papua New Guinea is wide open to terrorist attacks from across the
Indonesian border on major mining and energy projects,
says a former PNG Defence Force commander.

Retired Major-General Jerry Singarok said the Australian-backed downsizing
of the defence force left PNG unable to properly
protect the 750km border where illegal trading, money laundering, gun
smuggling and illegal migration were ongoing.

The government and top military brass could not be complacent when
Indonesia was home to Jemaah Islamiah whose terrorists
could easily cross into PNG to attack vulnerable targets, he said.

They included the giant Ok Tedi copper mine in Western Province and the
Hides Gas project in the Southern Highlands.

"That's why I am saying the downsizing exercise in the defence force has
serious security consequences," Singarok said on
PNG's FM100 radio talkback show on Tuesday.

PNG needed fit and well-equipped soldiers to police the border where there
were many weak points increasingly used by illegal
operators, he said.

When he was defence force commander in 1997, Singarok led army opposition
to government plans to employ Sandline mercenaries
to quash Bougainville secessionist fighters - then prime minister Sir
Julius Chan was forced to step down and the mercenary
operation ceased.

© 2006 AAP
Brought to you by aap

- ---

Papuan asylum seekers unhappy in Australia: Indonesian legislator (via joyo
news)

JAKARTA, June 20 (Xinhua) -- An Indonesian senior legislator said
Tuesday that 42 Papuan asylum seekers in Australia began to regret
things as lives in the neighboring country were contrast to their
prior expectation.

A.S. Hikam, a member of the House of Representatives' commission one
overseeing foreign affairs, said the Papuans felt that they had been
deceived by the group's leaders, who promised them better jobs in
Australia.

"The 42 Papuans apparently do not share a common interest. They felt
they had been deceitfully forced to believe they would get jobs,"
Hikam, who recently visited Australia, was quoted by the Detikcom news
website as saying.

But the legislator refused to cite his source.

He said the Australian lawyers representing the Papuans have blocked
his delegation's access to face-to-face meeting with the asylum
seekers.

The lawyers have expressed worries that the House commission one will
intimidate the Papuans and turned down request for the meeting, he
said.

Australia has sparked anger in Indonesia after giving protection visas
to all but one asylum seekers in March. Jakarta recalled its
ambassador in Canberra in protest, but the envoy returned to office
last week.

Another thorny issue between Indonesia and Australia is the recent
release of cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir, who has spent 26 months in jail
for a minor role in the Bali bombings that killed 202 people,
including 89 Australians.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and Australian Prime Minister John
Howard are scheduled to meet June 26 on Batam island.


- ---

Japanese citizen detained by Jayapura immigration (via joyo news)

Jayapura, June 20 (ANTARA) - A Japanese national, Makita Tsuyoshi
(65), was quarantined at the Jayapura immigration office Monday night
for an immigration law violation, an official said here Tuesday.

Tsuyoshi was questioned together with the captain of the tanker  MT
Bung Gaya 3 and an official of PT Muasamus shipping company which had
dealings with Jakarta-based PT Dok Tawiri , the company employing the
Japanese, Jayapura immigration office head Giri Harijanto said.

Tsuyoshi claimed he had been working for PT Dok Duri  for 15 years.

He also said he was ordered by PT Dok Tawiri general manager Suradi
Markam to monitor MT Bung Gaya tanker which sailed from Vanimo in
Papua New Guinea to Jayapura, capital of Indonesia?s easternmost
province.

Tsuyoshi who hold passport number TZ6040627 which valids on July 17,
2000-July 18, 2010 received a 60-day tourism visa last April 28 from
the Indonesian Consulate General in Vanimo.

The Japanese citizen was arrested when his Malaysian flagged-MT Bung
Gaya entered a port in Jayapura on April 28 for fuel oil unloading.

The Jayapura immigration office deported last June 10 four Russians
for breaching Indonesian immigration law. They entered Indonesia using
tourism visas but later were hired by private airlines Trigana Air
Service as pilot, co-pilot and technicians.

- ---

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2006/s1668013.htm

Indonesia urges Australia to review Papua refugee decision

AM - Wednesday, 21 June , 2006  08:12:00
Reporter: Geoff Thompson
TONY EASTLEY: A senior Indonesian parliamentarian says that the Australian
Government's proposed changes to asylum laws
should be completed before John Howard meets Indonesian President Yudhoyono
next week.

Theo Sambuaga, the Chairman of the Indonesian Parliament's Foreign
Relations Committee, also says it would be advisable for
the Australian Prime Minister to steer clear of discussing last week's
release of radical cleric Abu Bakar Bashir.

Last night Mr Howard dismissed Mister Sambuaga's tips, saying he wouldn't
be taking his advice on what issues to raise in his
meeting with the Indonesian President.

Theo Sambuaga has told our Jakarta Correspondent, Geoff Thompson, that
Indonesia's parliament still expects Australia to
review its decision to grant visas to 42 Papuan asylum seekers.

THEO SAMBUAGA: We of course would like very much that first the granting of
Temporary Visa to the 42, our brothers from
Papua, asylum seekers, being refused by the Australian Government. While we
are thinking for the future, we still have to
address this issue, and we hope that the Government of Australia will have
this review.

GEOFF THOMPSON: It seems that the Australian Government's offer is to
change the legislation so that it won't happen again,
but it seems that those changes may not quite make it in time for the
meeting. Will that provide an obstacle to the healing
effect that the meeting is meant to have?

THEO SAMBUAGA: Yes of course, as a signal, it is a positive signal of the
Australian Government with the process of reviewing
the legislation. We don't know whether it's going to be completed before
the meeting. We hope it's going to be completed, of
course.

GEOFF THOMPSON: If it's not completed, what will that mean?

THEO SAMBUAGA: If it is not completed I can understand, as a Member of
Parliament, as a legislator myself, I know that it
takes time to have it processed.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Indonesia has obligations under United Nations Resolution
1267, which requires for sanctions against
UN-listed terrorists such as Abu Bakar Bashir, such as freezing his assets,
restricting his movements and making sure he has
no access to arms. And this issue is one which Prime Minister Howard says
he will be taking up with President Yudhoyono.

THEO SAMBUAGA: But not in the (inaudible) of, let's say, put more
ascendance or put more sanction to Abu Bakar Bashir.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Would you oppose moves to enforce the United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1267 and take more action
against him?

THEO SAMBUAGA: No. We, as a member of the United Nations, abide by the
decision or resolution of the UN.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Why not freeze Abu Bakar Bashir's assets then?

THEO SAMBUAGA: We should see it case-by-case, but not in... give more,
let's say, (inaudible) or sentence to Abu Bakar
Bashir. As a, you know, a citizen, he is a free man after he's served his
sentence.

GEOFF THOMPSON: Prime Minister Howard has said: "I don't normally take
advice on what I raise with foreign heads of state
from the chairmen of foreign relations committees," referring to you. What
do you say to that?

THEO SAMBUAGA: Oh, yes, yeah, of course. The Australian Prime Minister
doesn't take advice from Members of Parliament of
other countries, but of course it is the express of the few of the people,
and then it is addressed to our President,
Indonesian President. The President should take advice or should consider
advice from his people and from his
parliamentarians.

GEOFF THOMPSON: And your advice would be what?

THEO SAMBUAGA: My advice is don't let other heads of foreign countries to
intervene in our process of law.

TONY EASTLEY: Theo Sambuaga, the Chairman of the Indonesian Parliament's
Foreign Relations Committee, talking there with
Geoff Thompson in Jakarta.

- ---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Papua-Bashir-cant-be-compared-Downer/20
06/06/16/1149964708353.html

Papua, Bashir can't be compared: Downer

June 16, 2006 - 9:44AM


Indonesia's concerns over Papuan independence cannot be compared with
Australian outrage about the release of a militant
cleric, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer says.

A visiting Indonesian parliamentary delegation has drawn links between the
issues, with one MP urging Australia not to be a
"silent enemy" of Jakarta.

The head of the delegation, Muhammad Hikam, has said he would like Canberra
to revoke the protection visas granted to 42
Papuan asylum seekers to ease tension between the countries, but said
Jakarta would not get involved in the process.

The delegation has compared Indonesian anger over the visa decision with
Australian anger over the release from jail of
firebrand cleric Abu Bakar Bashir, who was imprisoned for giving his
blessing to the 2002 Bali bombings.

But Mr Downer rejected any links between the issues.

"That wouldn't be our perspective," he told ABC radio.

"We think there are completely different issues at stake here.

"I wouldn't draw any comparisons between the two except to say ... that
there would be, and there has been, an expression of
outrage in the Australian community about the brevity of Abu Bakar Bashir's
sentence, and we, of course, know that in
Indonesia there's a lot of sensitivity about this whole issue of Papua.

"I told them that on the one hand we understood that and on the other we
supported Indonesian sovereignty over Papua, but it
was very important they move forward with their special autonomy status for
Papua and put in place the reforms that the
president has promised."

Bashir, the alleged spiritual leader of terrorist network Jemaah Islamiah
(JI), was released from jail this week after
serving 25 months for endorsing the 2002 Bali attacks which killed 202
people, including 88 Australians.

Prime Minister John Howard has said Australia is disgusted with Bashir's
release and he has written to Indonesian President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, reminding him of Jakarta's duty to keep a close
watch on the cleric and to freeze his assets.

Labor has called for Bashir to be placed under 24-hour surveillance.

Mr Downer would not reveal whether Indonesia had made any commitments about
monitoring Bashir but said he was happy with
meetings on the issue so far.

© 2006 AAP

- ---

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060621.E02&irec=
2

Australia and RI: Facing off on the the flip side

Dewi Anggraeni, Melbourne

If anything can go wrong, it will. This is popularly known as Murphy's Law,
an expression the self-deprecating Irish use to
"celebrate" the preponderance for messing things up. I, however, am
referring to the relationship between Indonesia and
Australia. It is a long distance, tenuous friendship reliant on selectively
sent news -- and, unfortunately, it is not
necessarily the best sort that reaches the other side.

In fact, events which have gone wonderfully hardly rate a mention in the
news, and are rarely held up as paradigms of good
will, yet as soon as something turns pear-shaped it quickly becomes
headline news. And then it becomes a source of resentment
before escalating into anger and a flurry of mutual accusations.

Curiously, Indonesia and Australia seem to have developed something of an
art of walking into each other's lives at precisely
the wrong time, and then reading the worst into any given situation. By the
time the accused party has recovered its breath,
pleading "It's not what you think!" has little effect.

In addition to this, Indonesians are masters of conspiracy theory, and
Australians aren't far behind in this craft.

Look no further back than the beginning of this year, when 43 Papuans
arrived on Australia's shores seeking asylum. They were
taken to Christmas Island, an Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, and
amid a great deal of publicity and visits by
politicians who may have been genuinely concerned about the asylum seekers,
or seen an opportunity to win votes, their
applications were processed by the department of immigration. Before long,
42 were granted temporary protection visas.

This was immediately seen by many in Indonesia as Australia's bad faith,
harking back to its prominent role in Timor Leste's
separating from Indonesia. These people believe Australia delights in
seeing Indonesia disintegrating, because it does not
like having a strong nation immediately to its north. They saw the granting
of visas to the 42 Papuans as further evidence.
Australia, they were sure now, was encouraging more Papuans to leave and
come to Australia. Otherwise, why were so many
asylum seekers from Afghanistan and the Middle East left languishing in
offshore Manus Island in PNG and Nauru while the
Papuans were accepted pronto?

While I have no ready answer for that question, one aspect may be
interesting to note. The 43rd Papuan who was refused a visa
was Herman Wainggai. It was not because he was a well-known activist, but
because the authorities discovered he had a
Japanese mother, the logic being that he should be able to seek asylum in
Japan. In other words, Australia would not give
anyone temporary protection if any other avenue were still available. This
is certainly not a sign of eagerness to have a
large number of Papuans coming to its shore.

The angry reaction from Jakarta, which recalled Ambassador Hamzah Thayeb,
was much noted in Australia, causing concern in the
government circles and bemusement in the community. These two different
responses have played out further in the domestic
political arena.

On the one hand, the government immediately tried to explain to Indonesia
that it had no role in the decision taken by the
department of immigration in granting the temporary protection visas to 42
asylum seekers from Papua, and that Australia
would always support the integrity of the Indonesian nation.

On the other, the opposition and some minor parties played a different
tune. They used this as evidence of the government's
weakness, in this case pandering to Indonesia. As if on cue, the government
proposed an amendment to the immigration laws
which would send "unwanted" arrivals to Nauru, thus taking them off
Australian shores. Unfortunately this would have the
dreadful effect of locking women and children in detention centers outside
Australia, and outside Australia's jurisdiction.

The spirit of the immigration amendment bill is not new. Over the last
decade Australia, while having generously accepted a
large number of refugees in proportion to its population, has indicated it
is not keen on taking any more. In 2003 it excised
its own islands as points of entry for immigrants, so "unwanted" arrivals
who landed on those outlying islands would not be
entitled to seek asylum from Australia. And if they became wise and headed
straight for the mainland, if intercepted they
would be "taken" to one of those islands.

This was long before the arrivals of the 43 Papuans.

Keen to play domestic politics however, the opposition and some minor
parties portrayed the proposed immigration amendment
bill as "Indonesia dictating our law and policy". One shadow opposition
spokesperson has even repeatedly stated that the
government is not listening to its own backbenchers -- a number of whom
indeed opposed the bill --, but "kowtowing" to
Indonesian parliamentarians.

Are the opposition and the other parties really against Indonesia? I do not
believe so. Expedient, rather. If the opposition
ever made to government, they would most likely say that relationship with
Indonesia was very important to Australia. But for
the time being, Indonesia is a convenient anvil for their domestic
politics.

The game of bad timing has not come to an end. Last week Abu Bakar
Ba'asyir, known in Australia as the "mastermind" of the
2002 Bali bombings which killed 88 mostly young Australian holiday-makers,
was released after barely two years' imprisonment.
The news of his release has brought painful memories to the victims'
families. This time, the government plays populist
politics, expressing "anger" at such a lenient prison term meted out to
Ba'asyir and Prime Minister John Howard has promised
to convey this sentiment when he meets with President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono in his visit to Indonesia.

Is he unaware that Ba'asyir was convicted by the Indonesian court despite
the flimsy evidence brought against him, the main
witnesses being held in the United States and not produced at the trials,
while the main perpetrators of the 2002 Bali
bombings have been sentenced to death? Most likely he is. But it is
expedient to have, and maintain, this public rage.

While the politicians play domestic politics, there is no doubt that mutual
suspicions fester in both communities. Thank God
for small mercies that there are still people who single-mindedly work on
spreading the existing goodwill, on both sides.

The writer is a journalist.

- ---

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0606/S00439.htm

Indonesia pact should be vetted by Aust. Senate
Wednesday, 21 June 2006, 7:56 pm
Press Release: Australian Green Party


Greens Leader Bob Brown has moved for a Senate inquiry into the Howard
government's proposed security pact with Indonesia.

"There is great public disquiet in Australia about this pact, especially as
it will contain a clause to have Australia
endorse Jakarta's military control of West Papua," said Senator Brown.

"The Prime Minster should consult parliament before signing a treaty with
President Yudhoyono," Senator Brown said.

- ---

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/worldservice/meta/tx/assignment?nb
ram=1&nbwm=1&size=au&lang=en-ws&bgc=003399

The international energy giant BP is investing $5 billion in a gas plant in
a remote part of Indonesia - West Papua.
The investment could bring prosperity to the region. But the area is
politically unstable, with a strong separatist movement.
Can BP's promises of corporate social responsibility hold good in such an
environment?
Rachel Harvey reports

- ---

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060620.E02

Is a presidential instruction on Papua really necessary?

Opinion and Editorial - June 20, 2006

Neles Tebay, Rome

Last month, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono disclosed his intention to
issue a new presidential instruction on Papua in an
effort to speed up the development and implementation of poverty
eradication, infrastructure, education, and health care
programs in Papua province, as well as to create a mechanism to better
measure the region's progress.

The instruction will be the second presidential instruction on Papua after
the approval of the 2001 Special Autonomy Law for
Papua Province.

The first presidential instruction was issued by then President Megawati
Soekarnoputri in 2001 on the controversial policy of
the division of Papua into three separate provinces.

If the government repeats Megawati's blunder in 2001, then, Yudhoyono's new
policy will create another political upheaval for
Papua.

In order to avoid conflict, the government needs to fulfill seven
conditions before producing the instruction.

First, The central government must be very sure that the second
presidential instruction is not going to violate the Papuan
Autonomy Law. Otherwise, the second Instruction will become another
contradictory policy, taken by Jakarta, to deliberately
undermine the Autonomy Law.

The government's basic assumption here is that the implementation of the
Autonomy Law has faltered in Papua Province due to
the absence of a presidential instruction.

Second, the government needs to enumerate all the problems in Papua
province before producing the second instruction. Such a
clarification is badly needed both for the government and the Papuans.

Third, the government needs to have a clear idea about whom the
presidential instruction will be directed at. Local
government is only one of stakeholders in the implementation of the Papuan
Autonomy Law.

There are also other stakeholders, such as the Papuan people themselves,
the Indonesian Military (TNI), National Police, the
Papuan Legislative Council (DPRP), the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP), the
two state-run universities, the Papuan religious
leaders, the Papuan Customary Council (DPA), and multinational companies.

If the instruction is being made for all stakeholders, then, the government
must be sure that, the Papuan religious leaders
and the Papuan tribal leaders, for example, are legally and
administratively bound by the presidential instruction.

Fourth, it would be wise to issue the second Instruction after the newly
elected governor of Papua Province is installed.

The gubernatorial election in Papua province has already been conducted.
The newly elected governor is a native Papuan.
People are waiting for the installation of the new governor.

Fifth, the government needs to consult the Papuans before producing the
second instruction.

If the Papuans are not consulted, it means, the government is deliberately
denying the Papuans' dignity, their reasoning and
their soul, their capabilities and gifts, and ignoring their fundamental
right to participation.

As the Papuans have already been made victims for more than four decades
under Indonesian rule, they will refuse to become
victims of another government policy.

If the government cannot fulfill these conditions, then, the issuance of
the new presidential instruction will create more
new problems.

The central government needs to hold a genuine dialog between Jakarta and
Papua that includes all stakeholders.

The goal of the dialog is to jointly identify the problems in Papua
Province, the obstacle to the implementation of the
Papuan Autonomy Law, the solution to remove the obstacles and address the
problems.

Applying peaceful, compassionate, and democratic approaches as proposed by
President Yudhoyono, the same agenda for the
dialog could be discussed at the three different levels.

It begins with a dialog among the Papuans in Papua. This dialog is
facilitated by the MRP.

It is followed by another dialog between the Papuans who live in Papua
Province and in exile. This dialog is held in a
foreign country and facilitated by the MRP.

To enable the Papuans to participate actively and freely in these two
levels of dialog, the government should create
opportunities and a safe atmosphere for discussions.

The final level is a dialog between Jakarta and Papua. This level of dialog
is facilitated by a third party, which should
ideally be foreign and neutral.

The writer is a Catholic priest and has just finished his PhD at Pontifical
University of Urbaniana, Rome. He can be reached
at nelestebay@hotmail.com.

- ---

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/21/indone13587_txt.htm

Indonesia: Military Business Threatens Human Rights
Government Must Reform Defense Finances

(Jakarta, June 21, 2006) – The Indonesian government’s plans to reform
military-owned businesses do not sufficiently address
the human rights problems fueled by the current system, Human Rights Watch
said in a new report released today. The
Indonesian military’s independent financing undermines civilian control,
contributing to abuses of power by the armed forces
and impeding reform.
“The military’s money-making creates an obvious conflict of interest
with its proper role,” said Lisa Misol, researcher with
the Business and Human Rights Program of Human Rights Watch and author of
the report. “Instead of protecting Indonesians,
troops are using violence and intimidation to further their business
interests. And because the government doesn’t control
the purse-strings, it can’t really control them.”

The 136-page report, “Too High a Price: The Human Rights Cost of the
Indonesian Military’s Economic Activities,” is the most
comprehensive account to date of the harmful effect on civilians of the
armed forces’ involvement in business. Human Rights
Watch called on the Indonesian government to ban all military businesses,
reform the budget process and hold military
personnel accountable for crimes.

The Indonesian military raises money outside the government budget through
a sprawling network of legal and illegal
businesses, by providing paid services, and through acts of corruption such
as mark-ups in military purchases. Many of these
businesses are not controlled by the military’s central command, but they
have been allowed to spread as a flawed response to
budget constraints.

Longstanding rules against military profit-seeking have not been enforced.
The business practices of military enterprises
have helped sustain the reputation of the Indonesian military as abusive,
corrupt and largely above the law.

“The Indonesian government says it wants to professionalize its military,
but we’ve seen little evidence of real change,”
Misol said. “Troops are breaking the law, violating human rights and
hiding the money they make on the side. Military reform
means getting soldiers out of business and prosecuting those who broke the
law.”

A 2004 law requires the Indonesian military to withdraw from business by
2009. Civilian and military leaders have pledged to
implement the law. But they have not yet adopted regulations spelling out
how the government will take over military
businesses. Officials say their draft plan may be ready for adoption by
August.

“The people of Indonesia pay the price for the military’s economic
adventurism,” said Misol. “It’s past time to do something
serious about it.”

Human Rights Watch documented several examples of military involvement in
business, its negative consequences, and the lack
of accountability for economic crimes and associated abuses:

    * A series of military-owned businesses in East Kalimantan secured
preferred access to forest concessions on land claimed
by local indigenous communities. Authorities later said the military
companies had engaged in over-logging, illegally
exported timber to Malaysia, and contributed to social unrest. The behavior
was so egregious that the companies eventually
lost the concessions, but did not otherwise face any consequences.
    * A coal-mining company in South Kalimantan brought in a military-run
cooperative to provide security to help it deal
with illegal miners in its concession area. The military organized the
miners, used violence and intimidation to keep them in
line, and brokered sales of the illegally mined coal. Military authorities
declined to crack down on this activity or to
punish those involved.
    * Companies that use the Indonesian military to provide security for
their installations frequently find that these
arrangements have been marked by allegations of corruption and abuse, as
seen in the continuing controversy over the
operations of U.S. mining company Freeport McMoRan in Papua in eastern
Indonesia. Investigations have been opened in the
United States into allegations that the payments might amount to extortion.
There are no plans for an independent
investigation in Indonesia to determine whether military officers committed
a crime by accepting cash payments from the
company.
    * Military involvement in illegal business fuels lawlessness and
violent conflict. In the most notorious example,
soldiers mounted a major attack on a police station in a busy town center
in North Sumatra, killing several civilians, over a
dispute allegedly involving local drug-trafficking interests. Hundreds of
troops were involved, but only 19 were discharged
and sentenced to jail following the incident.
    * Soldiers in areas of internal conflict in Indonesia commonly engage
in predatory economic behavior, such as extortion
and property seizures. This was the case in Aceh during the longstanding
conflict there. Military demands for bribes have
lessened since the devastating tsunami in 2004 and the signing of a peace
accord, but ongoing military corruption is driving
up the cost of reconstruction and adding to the survivors’ hardship.

Indonesia’s military says that its official budget is sufficient to meet
only about half of its needs, and some estimates
suggest that the military raises the remainder independently. In March
2006, the military declared that it owned more than
1,500 businesses. Many of them are collapsing after years of mismanagement.


Human Rights Watch acknowledged that Indonesia’s defense budget is low
compared to many of its neighbors, but said the
problem was not as severe as is often stated because the military also
draws on additional funds from other government
accounts. These funds are not transparently reported and, Human Rights
Watch said, oversight of military finances is very
weak.

“It’s the government’s responsibility to finance the military,”
Misol said. “Moonlighting by the military is not the answer.
Indonesia’s leaders need to agree on an appropriate defense budget that
is strictly monitored and reported accurately.”

Human Rights Watch called on the Indonesian government to revamp its plans
to take over military business. Government
planners have said they will transform the few profitable military
enterprises into state-owned companies, but they intend to
allow the military to keep the charitable foundations and cooperatives that
have been a front for its commercial interests.
Officials have also carved out exceptions to the ban on military business
that dramatically weaken the potential to clean up
military finances.

- ---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1667518.htm

Australian Broadcasting Corporation
June 20, 2006

Papuans rally, call for man to be granted asylum

Papuans and their supporters have rallied in Adelaide to protest
against the Federal Government's migration bill.

Seven of 42 Papuans granted temporary protection this year were
among the group that gathered outside the Federal Government
offices in Adelaide.

They urged that a 43rd Papuan being held in detention be granted
asylum.

David Wainggai's application for temporary protection was refused
last month.

He has taken an appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal.

Mr Wainggai's cousin, Herman, says his cousin would be in danger
if returned to the Indonesia.

"We feel worried, if David Wainggai is sent back to Jakarta or sent
back to Indonesia, that's not help me and my family and my people,"
he said.

They also appealed for the Government to abandon its proposed
changes to immigration laws, which would allow asylum seekers
to be processed offshore.

- ---

http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp?fileid=20060619.G02

Papuan governor election bogged down by infighting

National News - June 19, 2006

Nethy Dharma Somba, The Jakarta Post, Jayapura

Barnabas Suebu won Papua's direct gubernatorial election, but he hasn't had
time to celebrate yet.

Instead, the newly elected governor and his lawyers, led by Bambang
Widjojanto, reported Papua Council Speaker John Ibo to
the police for alleged defamation on Saturday.

Bambang said John, who ran unsuccessfully against Barnabas, had accused
Barnabas of using fake documents to register as a
candidate for the March 10 election.

He said the story was picked up by local media in early June, after the
Papua General Elections Commission had declared
Barnabas and his running mate Alex Hassegem the winners.

Bambang said John violated articles 310 and 311 of the Criminal Code and
could face up to four years in jail if found guilty.

Earlier, the lawyer also filed a lawsuit against John Ibo at the Jayapura
District Court, demanding more than Rp 500 billion
(US$52,6 million) in compensation.

Bambang said John had attacked his client personally, as well as attacking
his integrity and defaming him. He said Barnabas
did not use fake documents to run in the election.

Barnabas said in a press conference in Jayapura that the fake document
referred to in the statement was a letter explaining
that he had lost his senior high school diploma. He said he never had a
high school diploma, since he never took the final
examination.

He explained that when he was a first-year student at SMA Advent Doyo
Sentani senior high school, he took a Colloquium Doctum
program ran by Cendrawasih University and passed, which enabled him to
enroll at the university's School of Law.

"So I have never had a high school diploma," he said.

He said the letter explaining that he had lost his diploma was drafted by
his campaign team, who did not know that he does
not have one.

He said he had ordered his campaign team to withdraw the document and
openly explained the matter to the public.

John Ibo said he was surprised by the lawsuit, adding that he had simply
followed up on peoples' reports in his capacity as
council speaker.

"But I'm not scared. I have the truth and the law will recognize the
truth," he said.

The lawsuit is not the only thing that has kept Barnabas out of the
governor's office.

After he was officially named as the election's winner by the Papua General
Elections Commission at the end of May, the
commission released two conflicting letters.

One letter, dated June 6 and released by the council's deputy, Komaruddin
Watubun, said Barnabas and his running mate Alex
should be officially installed in their offices for the 2006-2011 period.

But the next day, another letter was issued by John Ibo, saying
Komaruddin's letter violated the council's procedures.

In the letter, John also said the two could only be installed following a
plenary meeting, which would be held only after the
council's investigative team completed its probe of Barnabas' alleged use
of fake documents.

- ---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1668786.htm

Coalition division delays migration bill

The Federal Government has put off plans to debate changes to its migration
laws in the Federal Parliament, after a
compromise failed to win over a group of Coalition backbenchers.

The plans to move all unauthorised boat arrivals offshore were to be
debated today.

Some Government backbenchers have threatened to cross the floor over the
issue.

The Prime Minister John Howard has made an offer which includes placing
women and children in residential style accomodation
in offshore centres.

Liberal MP Bruce Baird says there are still sticking points.

"There are some issues we are still talking through," he said.

The changes were proposed after 43 Papuans arrived in Australia, prompting
a rift in the relationship with Indonesia.

But Mr Howard says he does not think the delay will affect his visit to
Jakarta next week.

"It's never a problem for me to practise Australian democracy," he said.

"If it's a problem for other countries, well that's their problem, not
mine."

Debate on the changes is not expected until August.
Discussion

Mr Howard says most in the party room support the plans but he is prepared
to allow more time for discussion over the winter
break.

"In these matters the minority view point has a right to be heard," he
said.

"But in the end the majority view, clearly expressed, is the way our party
has always operated and there'll be time to look
at them in greater detail in the six-week break.

"What we have done is to make sure the agreement reached last year is
reflected in these new arrangements."

The offer includes a commitment to try to complete assessments in three
months.

Mr Baird has acknowledged the concessions made to meet concerns about the
bill.

"I've expressed my reservations about the legislation, but it's also
certainly true that the Prime Minister and Amanda
Vanstone have met a number of our concerns, so we'll see," he said.

The Federal Opposition spokesman on immigration, Tony Burke, says the
Coalition backbenchers are to be congratulated and
Labor will not support the changes.

"The principle behind the legislation is that Australia has no borders," he
said.

"Border protection is too important to pretend that we don't have any
borders, so the principle behind the legislation that
you have no borders is wrong.

"Added to that the whole concept of dumping people in other countries, it
doesn't matter what concessions you get, it's the
wrong thing to do."

- ---

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1668786.htm

Backbench revolt on refugees and stem cells
Samantha Maiden and Cath Hart
June 22, 2006
IN the strongest rebuff to his authority in 10 years, John Howard was last
night battling a backbench revolt on two fronts as
Coalition MPs refused to back the Government on migration laws and a ban on
stem cell research.

The Prime Minister last night confirmed significant amendments to the
Government's controversial asylum laws, which are
designed to force all boatpeople into offshore detention centres.

But rebel MPs, including Liberals Petro Georgiou, Russell Broadbent and
Judith Troeth and Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce,
warned the offer did not go far enough.

Their resistance means Mr Howard will go into the seven-week winter
parliamentary break without an agreement on the bill.

However, Mr Howard has stared down previous backbench revolts since coming
to power in 1996, including party unrest over
plans to introduce the GST and the sale of Telstra.

The Coalition partyroom was last night formally briefed on asylum
concessions, including offering community housing for women
and children, 90-day time limits for the processing of claims and a
watchdog role for the Ombudsman.

The changes will also include a commitment that genuine refugees will not
be held offshore indefinitely if a third country
cannot be found for resettlement, particularly if they already have family
in Australia. Legal advice will also be offered to
detainees, and children will be held in detention only as a "last resort".
A five-year sunset clause will also be established
to review the legislation.

"The proposed changes do not alter the thrust of the bill or the
fundamental principles of the Government's offshore
processing system," Mr Howard said.

"The Government remains committed to strengthening Australia's border
protection measures and believes the bill is important
to achieving that goal."

Mr Howard said the changes had the overwhelming support of the partyroom
but confirmed they would not secure parliamentary
support before the winter break, which starts today. Debate will resume in
the August sittings.

Angry Liberal MPs also accused Mr Howard of a "snow job" on his support for
a continuing ban on therapeutic cloning - the
creation of embryonic stem cells for scientific purposes - and demanded
further debate.

Mr Howard told the meeting of Coalition MPs last night that cabinet had
resolved on Monday to reject the recommendations of
the Lockhart inquiry into stem cell laws and retain the status quo.

The battle over stem cell research has split cabinet, with conservatives
including Health Minister Tony Abbott and Finance
Minister Nick Minchin lining up against Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane
and Education Minister Julie Bishop.

A spokesman for Mr Howard said last night "cabinet had a disposition not to
make any changes" to the legislation passed in
2002, despite the recommendations of the Lockhart review. "Cabinet
recognises the complexity of this issue and the many
differing views that are held," he said. "There will be a lengthy and
detailed partyroom discussion on the issue when
parliament resumes."

Former health minister Kay Patterson, now a Liberal backbencher, also
entered the fray, warning Mr Howard she would have
supported therapeutic cloning if given the chance.

Liberal MP Mal Washer also questioned the quality of the advice on
therapeutic cloning and said he would push for a
conscience vote.

"I am pretty disappointed. I am hopping mad," he told The Australian last
night. "It's the research that possibly could have
led to the saving of millions of lives in the future." However, Tasmanian
senator Guy Barnett and Victorian MP Tony Smith
applauded the decision.

The partyroom split came just a day after Mr Howard personally shut down
debate on the asylum bill during a fiery meeting on
Tuesday.

Mr Howard, who will meet Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono on
Monday, insisted again yesterday that the bill was
not designed to appease Jakarta. "The Government is not acting in any way
to appease Indonesia," he said.

Mr Howard said his 2001 policy of "intercepting and returning boats to
Indonesia" had stopped "a veritable flood of illegal
immigrants coming to this country".
Rebel MPs said the sticking points over a deal on migration laws remained
the application of Australian law to asylum-seekers
held offshore and the ability of genuine refugees to be resettled in
Australia rather than a third country, which is the
preferred option under the proposed laws.

The passage of the bill, which is seen as a radical expansion of the
Pacific Solution, would lead to all asylum-seekers who
arrive on the Australian mainland by boat being processed in offshore
detention centres such as the Pacific island of Nauru.

The main points of contention have been the question of how Australia will
guarantee conditions under Nauruan law and whether
people could be resettled in Australia if found to be refugees.

Under the proposed changes, the Government intends to establish appropriate
residential-style accommodation for women,
children and families, and will ensure a decision is made on a person's
refugee status within three months where possible.

Jesuit activist Father Frank Brennan will add to the stem cell debate
today, warning in the StThomas More Lecture that the
case for a relaxation of bans on therapeutic cloning has not been made.

"There has not been sufficient change in the state of scientific knowledge
nor in community acceptance of deliberate creation
of human life for destructive experimentation to warrant a revisiting," he
says.

Victorian Premier Steve Bracks has threatened to break ranks and explore
state options to allow limited stem cell research if
bans remain in place against therapeutic cloning.

Under existing laws governing embryo research and the prohibition of
cloning, scientists can use only spare IVF embryos for
stem cell research.

Scientists had been pushing for the legalisation of therapeutic cloning,
which involves taking the nucleus of a human cell
and injecting it into an egg to create an embryo. The change was
recommended by the Lockhart review and was due to be
considered at the Council of Australia Governments meeting next month.

- ---

The Australian
Monday, June 19, 2006

Papuans give legislation marching orders (via joyo news)

by Richard Kerbaj

HUNDREDS of protesters, including four Papuan refugees, yesterday rallied
against the Howard Government's proposed migration bill that would lock
asylum-seekers in offshore detention centres.

The four refugees, who joined more than 300 protesters outside the
Melbourne
Museum, were among the 42 Papuans who fled to Australia from Indonesia by
boat
in January and were eventually granted temporary protection visas by the
Immigration Department.

Angry protesters attacked the bill and called for Immigration Minister
Amanda
Vanstone to be "locked up". Speaking through a translator, the four
refugees
told The Australian they opposed the bill and welcomed the protest.

Immigration lawyer David Manne, who represents the Papuans, told the crowd
that the Migration Amendment Bill would violate Australia's legal
international
obligations.

"These amendments are far more radical than anything that we've seen
before,"
he later told The Australian.

"Australia's very commitment to the protection of vulnerable people in need
is at stake."

The Migration Amendments Bill was introduced after Indonesia reacted
angrily
to the decision to grant protection visas to the Papuans in March.

The bill proposes all asylum-seekers arriving by boat be processed in
offshore centres such as Nauru.

Presently, asylum-seekers who make it to Australia are processed in
mainland
detention centres.

The proposed laws have sparked division in the federal Government, with
Liberal backbencher Judi Moylan reserving her right to vote against the
bill or
abstain during a Coalition partyroom meeting.

Democrats leader senator Lyn Allison told protesters the bill would bring
disgrace and shame to Australian citizens.

She said the bill would allow the Government to "completely avoid any
obligation to even consider taking people who are refugees who arrive
here".

Senator Allison said some refugees were suffering from health problems such
as mental illnesses as a result of their detainment.

"Mental illness is so common for people being held in year after year," she
said.

The Australian Democrats leader praised the protesters for opposing the
proposed laws, saying: "The cruel treatment of people who seek asylum in
this
country brings shame upon us all."

An inquiry into the bill by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Committee last week revealed the bill's "broad incompatibility with the
rule of
law" and its potential to breach Australia's obligations under
international law
if it were to be pushed through.

- ---

The Australian
Monday, June 19, 2006

Howard's key to asylum deadlock

Samantha Maiden, Political correspondent

AUSTRALIA will consider time limits to allow boatpeople being processed
under
proposed tough new immigration laws to settle here as part of a package of
concessions to head off a Coalition backbench revolt.

In major concessions to break the deadlock within the Government over the
migration laws, John Howard will allow some genuine asylum-seekers, whose
applications are processed offshore, to settle in Australia if a third
country cannot
be found within a specific time limit.

The concession is aimed at avoiding families languishing for years in
offshore processing centres under the proposed new laws drawn up after the
Papuan
asylum-seeker row with Indonesia.

The Australian understands that safeguards are also being discussed to
protect women and children and to ensure legal advice is offered to
asylum-seekers
who are held in offshore processing centres, including Nauru.

While the Government is determined to retain the core philosophy of
processing boatpeople's asylum claims offshore, whether they reach the
Australian
mainland or not, significant changes will be made to secure the votes of
concerned
Coalition MPs.

In response to one of the most significant backbench revolts since the
Howard
Government was elected in 1996, the concessions are designed to avoid an
embarrassing defeat in the Senate for the Government and the prospect of
Liberal
MPs crossing the floor in the House of Representatives this week if
agreement
cannot be reached.

While the Prime Minister is yet to publicly detail the changes, he
predicted
yesterday that agreement could still be reached with dissident MPs.

"Nothing is ever certain in politics, but I am a patient man," he said.

"The main point about this whole debate is will it strengthen our border-
protection policy to have a situation where every illegal arrival is
processed
offshore? The answer to that question has to be yes. And I hope that in the
end
we can further strengthen the policy but I will keep talking to my
colleagues.
I have done that in the past and I'll continue to do it in the future."

Up to 10 Coalition backbenchers are pushing for changes to the legislation,
including Liberal MPs Petro Georgiou, Judi Moylan, Russell Broadbent,
senators
Judith Troeth, Marise Payne, Russell Trood and Barnaby Joyce. Family First
senator Steve Fielding has also indicated he cannot support the current
legislation.

"What we want is for Australia to be considered as a definite possibility
for
resettlement," Senator Troeth said yesterday. "And you can't dump them on
Nauru with no access to legal advice." However, the Government's draft
response
to a Senate report that demanded the migration laws be scrapped will now
offer
concessions to allow more genuine refugees to settle in Australia.

If genuine refugees need urgent medical care or have family already living
in
Australia, officials may also consider this when determining where families
are re-settled.

"We never precluded the possibility of accepting genuine asylum-seekers in
Australia," a senior government source said.

The preferred position under the current legislation is that asylum-seekers
be resettled in a third country, even if they are found to be genuine
refugees,
after arriving in Australia by boat.

Proposed changes to migration laws followed the arrival of a group of
Papuan
asylum-seekers, 42 of whom were granted protection visas in a move that
sparked outrage in Indonesia.

Despite claims the Government is pursuing a policy of appeasement with the
new policy towards Indonesia, Mr Howard said there was no rush to resolve
passage of the new laws before his meeting with Indonesian President Susilo
Bambang
Yudhoyono in Indonesia later this month.

"We are not kowtowing to Indonesia because it is not kowtowing to a country
to retain their co-operation in implementing a policy which is in
Australia's
national interests," he said.

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone, who will have further talks with
rebel
MPs, said the Government was "bending over backwards" to resolve their
concerns.

"The only change in relation to this legislation is that the people who, by
luck of strong winds or better planning, happen to arrive on the mainland
will
be treated in the same way as those who land at an island just one
kilometre
off our northern coast," she told ABC TV.

Mr Howard confirmed yesterday he had not yet received a reply from the
Indonesian President to his letter protesting about the release of Abu
Bakar Bashir.

Australia has formally complained to Dr Yudhoyono about the release of the
Muslim cleric and demanded that restrictions be placed on him.

- ---

The Australian (via joyonews)
Monday, June 19, 2006

Indonesia a helpful partner in our border protection

Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone denies
appeasing Jakarta on ABC TV's Insiders program

BARRIE Cassidy: You have said that in framing this [asylum-seeker] bill you
took into account the concerns of Indonesia.

Senator Vanstone: Let me make that clear. What I've said is that it's in
our
national interest to have strong border protection and that co-operation
with
Indonesia has been a very successful part of our border protection. And
Australians are entitled to know that in protecting our national interest
and having
very strong border control, Indonesia has been a very helpful partner.

Cassidy: But why should Australia need to appease the Indonesians and do
them
special favours in order to bring about that sort of co-operation? That
should be a given, shouldn't it?

Senator Vanstone: You talk about appeasing, I think the granting of the
visas, despite the fact we'd had a call directly from the Indonesian
President to
our Prime Minister, is an indication that we'll follow what we think is
appropriate.

And if we did something that wasn't in our national interest, that we
didn't
feel comfortable doing, then I think you could say it was appeasement.

But all we're doing is what we need to do to have the strongest border
protection we possibly can. And that is in Australia's national interest.

Cassidy: What was it about the claims of these (42) Papuans that caused
them
to be granted visas in the first place? When the Prime Minister is talking
with Indonesians and they ask him that question directly, what's the
answer?

Senator Vanstone: Well, I did an article which I was very pleased was
printed
in The Australian on this issue and I'm grateful for the question because
there's a lot of misunderstanding about this.

The claims that individuals make are decided on an individual basis. It's
not
a case of saying, well this country is unsafe to live in or in this country
people are likely to be persecuted.

It's not done like that at all. Each claim is done individually on the
basis
of the individual claimant's story. So it's not possible to put all 42 of
them
into the one category.

- ---

Australia's PM: Indonesia Security Treaty Not A Priority

by Barbara Adam

CANBERRA - June 19 (Dow Jones)- Australian Prime Minister
John Howard said Monday he was agreeable to signing a security
treaty with Indonesia but it wasn't one of his priorities.

Indonesian Defense Minister Juwono Sudarsono has warned the
proposed security treaty wasn't an indication Indonesia wanted to
align itself militarily with Australia, the Australian Financial Review
reported earlier Monday.

But Howard said the treaty wasn't something he was pushing.

"I have never made signing some sort of security treaty an immediate
foreign policy aim in our relations with Indonesia," Howard told a
media briefing.

"I'm not a person who places a great deal of store on process or
framework in our relations with countries of the East Asian region."

Howard said he will discuss the Australia-Indonesia bilateral relationship
with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono next week.

The Prime Minister wouldn't comment on whether contentious migration
legislation will be passed by parliament before his meeting with Yudhoyono.

"I don't have anything to say to what I've previously said," he said.

Howard and Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone are trying to broker a
deal with a group of about 10 government backbenchers that will allow the
legislation to pass parliament.

The proposed new laws will result in unauthorized boat arrivals being sent
to offshore processing centers in Nauru and Papua New Guinea to have
their refugee claims assessed.

The legislation can be blocked in the Senate if just one government
senator votes against it.

- ---


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.6 (Build 6060) - not licensed for commercial use:
www.pgp.com

iQA/AwUBRJnaaBVsCeqMjcnGEQLk1ACffQXWEevPu3Uaf/g7dUU1ObNDXNcAoIn9
g5bfmqN0ooYD4v9xiBQSnczm
=wNTu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



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.