[Kabar-Irian] News: Sept 27-30 2007
========================KABAR IRIAN=========================================
News on Irian Jaya/West Papua/IRJA-BAR
Unsubscribe/Change Options:
http://www.kabar-irian.info/mailman/listinfo/kabar-irian
Archives: http://www.kabar-irian.info/pipermail/kabar-irian
Email Commands- Subscribe/unsubscribe/options/help
List-Post: kabar-irian@kabar-irian.info
List-Help: kabar-irian-request@kabar-irian.info?subject=help
List-unsubscribe: kabar-irian-request@kabar-irian.info?subject=unsubscribe
List-subscribe: kabar-irian-request@kabar-irian.info?subject=subscribe
Contacts: admin@irja.org, news@kabar-irian.info, editors@kabar-irian.info
www.kabar-irian.com - www.kabar-irian.info
Too much mail? Switch to the digest version. As a matter of policy we DO NOT
handle requests except in emergencies.
KABAR IRIAN NEWS
Sep 27-30
TOPICS
* Asylum seekers 'deported illegally'
* Australia criticised for sending back five Papuan asylum seekers to PNG
* Australia accused of breaching UN refugee convention
* Australia secretly deports Papuan separatists
* Art of the Kamoro rebuilds ancient culture
* Police dismiss harassment of Papuan Komnas HAM
* HALT DEATH THREATS AGAINST INDONESIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
* IPAHR West Papua Human Rights report
* West Papua: Paths to Justice and Prosperity.
* Resolution of the Pacific Conference of Churches 9th Assembly in Pago Pago
* Carbon dealers - Papua and Aceh
* Intimidation of Papuan rights representative
* WEST PAPUAN CLAIM UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
* West Papuan Independence leader returns...
---
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22492515-5005961,00.html
Asylum seekers 'deported illegally'
Article from: AAP
By David Crawshaw
September 27, 2007 05:43pm
AUSTRALIA broke international law and endangered the lives of five Papuan
asylum seekers by secretly sending the men back to Papua New Guinea,
refugee advocates
say.
In a move critics allege was designed to appease Indonesia, the Federal
Government today admitted deporting the five Papuans, who sailed from PNG
to reach Saibai
Island, in Australia's Torres Strait territory, on August 21.
The men were unable to claim asylum in Australia because the Howard
Government has excised Saibai Island from the country's migration zone.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said the men were transferred from
Saibai Island to a customs facility on Horn Island on August 24, from
where two were flown to
Cairns Hospital for medical treatment.
All were returned to a PNG refugee camp on September 18.
"There's no reason for them not to be sent back," Mr Andrews' spokeswoman
said.
"They raised some protection issues, but because they arrived at an
excised offshore island they couldn't make a claim, so we've returned them
to PNG where they can."
It would be up to the PNG Government to decide what to do with the men if
they were found to be refugees.
The Australian Government was confident the men were not in danger in PNG,
Mr Andrews' spokeswoman said.
There have been reports of Indonesian forces using violence against Papuan
independence activists since Indonesia seized control of the province in
the early 1960s.
Many Papuans have fled the violence into neighbouring PNG.
Rights group A Just Australia said it was unacceptable for Australia to
breach its legal obligations to people in need of protection,
"particularly as it is not for border security
but simply to appease a foreign government".
"Without doubt, the removal of these asylum seekers is a breach of
international law, and puts Australia at the bottom of the class in human
rights terms," the group's
national coordinator Kate Gauthier said.
Asylum Seeker Resource Centre coordinator Pamela Curr said there had been
recent moves in Port Moresby to evict Papuan refugees from their
settlements on the edge
of the PNG capital.
"What choices are open to them? Go back to West Papua and face the brutal
Indonesian military ... (or) try to negotiate somewhere else to stay in
PNG?" she said.
"If this cannot be achieved – set off in search of another country of
safety."
Refugee groups queried whether returning the men to PNG was designed to
prevent a repeat of last year's spat between Canberra and Jakarta stemming
from Australia's
decision to accept 43 Papuan asylum seekers as refugees.
Mr Andrews' spokeswoman dismissed the idea as "predictable conspiracy
rubbish".
Greens senator Kerry Nettle said the Papuans had sought refuge in
Australia because they clearly did not feel adequately protected in PNG.
Labor maintained its cautious approach to immigration issues ahead of the
election.
Asked today to comment on the case, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd said: "I
have not seen that report. I'd like to be fully briefed on it before
making any substantive
comments."
---
http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=35418
Radio New Zealand International
The Voice of New Zealand, Broadcasting to the Pacific
Te Reo Irirangi O Aotearoa, O Te Moana-Nui-A-Kiwa
Australia criticised for sending back five Papuan asylum seekers to PNG
Posted at 03:33 on 27 September, 2007 UTC
Australian Immigration authorities have been criticised for secretly
sending five Papuan asylum seekers back to Papua New Guinea after
intercepting their boat at Saibai
Island last month.
The government hadn’t revealed any details of the case until questioned by
The Australian newspaper.
A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister said the arrival was not announced
because it was a routine operational matter.
The Papuans had raised protection issues but were reportedly unable to
apply for protection because Saibai Island is excised under Australia’s
Migration Act.
The five Indonesian nationals have already been sent back to PNG, where
they had been living before their voyage.
A refugee and immigration lawyer David Manne says the Australian
immigration’s handling of the case is of concern.
“There’s a very serious question about whether there has been a
circumvention of the very requirement to properly assess the
protection needs of an asylum seeker in
Australian territory, and as part of that to determine whether they are a
refugee and if they are, to ensure that they’re not sent back to a
situation which is unsafe.”
David Manne
© RNZI 2004
---
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/news/stories/s2045613.htm
Australia accused of breaching UN refugee convention
Last Updated 27/09/2007, 18:52:12
A refugee organisation says Australia has breached the United Nations
refugee convention, with its removal of five Papuan asylum seekers.
The Australian government says five Indonesian nationals were intercepted
in a boat in waters between Papua New Guinea and northern Australia, and
sent back to Papua
New Guinea.
The refugee group, A Just Australia, says asylum seekers arriving by boat
from other countries such as Sri Lanka and Burma are at least removed to
the Pacific island of
Nauru while their applications for refugee status are processed.
The group says it is unacceptable that the government would breach legal
obligations to people needing protection.
It has accused the Australian government of trying to appease Indonesia,
under the guise of border security.
---
http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29737620070927
Australia secretly deports Papuan separatists
Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:44am IST
By Rob Taylor
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Australia secretly deported five separatist asylum
seekers from Indonesia's Papua province, in what rights groups said on
Thursday was an attempt
to appease Jakarta and avoid embarrassing its powerful military.
The men were sent to neighbouring Papua New Guinea from where they had set
off in a banana boat and were intercepted near Saibai Island, to
Australia's north, on
August 21.
"This is an issue which raises humanitarian responsibilities that should
be dealt with openly and fairly, not with secrecy and unjust laws,"
minority Australian Democrats
Senator Andrew Bartlett said after the government admitted the incident.
The five men, who had sought asylum as refugees, were taken to a PNG
refugee camp on September 18 after the Port Moresby government agreed to
re-admit them under
a 2003 asylum agreement between Australia and PNG.
Independence activists in Papua -- which is made up of two provinces on
the western half of New Guinea island -- have waged a campaign for more
than 30 years to break
away from Indonesia, while a low-level armed rebellion has also simmered
for decades.
Rights groups accuse the Indonesian military of using heavy-handed methods
to put down the revolt.
The arrival of a separate group of 43 Papuans on Australia's Cape York
peninsula in January last year prompted a furious diplomatic exchange
between Jakarta and
Canberra.
Indonesia's government said Australia's decision to give refugee visas to
all 43 amounted to backing for Papuan separatist claims of oppression by
Indonesian troops and
police. Jakarta ordered its Canberra ambassador home in protest.
To defuse the row, Australian and Indonesia last year signed a security
pact in which Canberra said it supported Indonesian sovereignty over
Papua.
A spokeswoman for Australia's Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said the
latest group were ineligible for protection because of new laws barring
refugee applications
from people landing on Australian islands.
"It was standard routine. They can have a claim processed in PNG, because
PNG is a signatory to the refugee convention," she said. The men were held
in detention for
three weeks and two received medical treatment before being deported.
Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre spokesman David Manne said the return
of the men to PNG was scandalous.
"There are serious questions about whether Australia has acted in
violation of our international obligations to protect refugees," he told
the Australian newspaper.
Bartlett accused the government of sweeping their case under the carpet to
avoid a fresh row with Indonesia.
"The federal government's enthusiasm for operating under a veil of secrecy
is the modus operandi for regimes the world over who treat basic human
rights as an optional
extra," he said.
© Reuters2007All rights reserved
---
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailfeatures.asp?fileid=20070927.R01&irec=0
Art of the Kamoro rebuilds ancient culture
Trisha Sertori, Contributor, Gianyar
For the past 40,000 years or more Australia's indigenous population has
passed on their arts and culture, generation to generation. They
"remember" the last ice age and
they paint it.
For much of the last 200 odd years that the white fella has been running
their country, that 40,000 year old culture and its art has been vilified
and mocked. But in the early
1970s, a young schoolteacher named Geoffrey Bardon was working a thousand
miles from anywhere out bush in central Australia and came face to face
with 40,000 years
of art making; he fell in love. Bardon's passion killed him in the end,
but due to his work, today indigenous Australian art is one of the most
bankable commodities in the
business.
Just across the Arafura Sea live longtime neighbors of Australia's top-end
indigenous people; a mob who visited, traded and perhaps shared stories,
dance and arts with
their southern cousins when the land bridge between Papua and Australia
still existed. These are the Kamoro people of Timika in Indonesia's
southern-central Papua.
Like their neighbors, the Kamoro have a history or art making, and like
their neighbors that art was at best undervalued, at worst destroyed by
the Dutch during their three-
century-plus colonization of Indonesia, and later by their fellow
Indonesian citizens.
"When Indonesia took over what was then Dutch West New Guinea much of the
local culture, including (the Kamoro) carving tradition was again
denigrated. It was a time
of transition and traditional houses and carvings were burned," explained
curator Kal Muller at the opening of the Kamoro Tribal Exhibition in Ubud
on Sunday. Moving the
exhibition to Bali was funded by the U.S.-based gold and copper mining
company, PT Freeport Indonesia. Henry Kissinger sits on its board of
directors.
That more than 300 year "denigration" of Kamoro culture threatened the
survival of arts and traditions born when man was new to the earth, says
Muller who has been, like
his famous Australian counterpart, Bardon, passionate about traditional
arts for decades and has lived and worked with the Kamoro for the past 14
years.
Muller, who works for Freeport in social development and corporate
communications, saw an opportunity to redress history by reinvigorating
cultural confidence among the
Kamoro through exhibitions of their works. He is introducing the world
outside Timika to the artists, and the beauty and creativity of Kamoro
arts and culture in schools and
galleries across the country.
"There is a two-fold reason to exhibiting and teaching the wider community
about Kamoro culture. The first is to preserve these important traditions
and raise the Kamoro
people's pride in their culture. Many of the young kids are turning away
from their culture, believing the modern world is where they need to be.
"The second reason is to introduce the Kamoro to other parts of their
country, the wider world. Having the opportunity to see Bali and that the
Balinese live with one foot in
the modern world and the other grounded in their culture is important. The
Kamoro realize they will never find a Balinese who is ashamed of their
culture. If the Kamoro see
that people can live in both worlds, have computers and still have
traditional culture, it may help to preserve these arts, but it will take
a long time to rebuild that confidence
lost over centuries of abuse," Muller said.
Also of great value is the opportunity for the Kamoro carvers to earn a
monetary income from their arts, says Muller.
Many of the Kamoro people's villages are extremely remote with little or
no monetary income entering the villages that depend on the forests and
some agriculture for their
survival.
For many Kamoro there is no income, says Muller. It depends how close the
villages are to Timika, which is often a day or more paddling by canoe to
get to the capital to
sell village produce.
"For some, carving is the only money they earn to pay for essentials like
school fees, flashlight batteries and medicines," said Muller adding the
modern world, and its
monetary system has arrived whether people like it or not.
Muller stresses all money earned through the Kamoro exhibitions are
received by the artists and that without Freeport's funding they would not
be able to travel and exhibit.
The Kamoro Tribal Exhibition is a must-see and a must-invest. The prices
of these special and wonderful art works are heartbreakingly low. A
quarter of the collection sold
on opening night, Sunday, September 23.
Kamoro Tribal Exhibition
Sept. 23-30
Toko Toko Gallery
Ubud
Phone: 0361 975 374.
Kamoro art forms
Like traditional arts around the world, the Kamoro carvings are grounded
in people's histories. They tell in wood and weavings the stories of their
heroes, spirits and
ancestors. Kamoro artists Niko Ukapoka and Urbanus Emaru explain the right
to carve comes through an hereditary line, but genetics do not guarantee
talent.
"We learn from our fathers, but it really comes through the blood, from
our ancestors. We feel the spirit of our ancestors when we carve," said
Niko on his first journey
outside of Timika. Timika is a lowlands area that Niko says is still rife
with malaria and dengue fever.
The Kamoro carvings range from the awesome Mbitoro ceremonial totem poles
that are often more than four metres in length. Mbitoro have an
angel-wing-like projection at
the apex, formed from the tree root of the carving.
Yamate are finely wrought shields, some forming a solid carved form and
others like expanded timber lace. Wemawe are sculptures of the ancestors,
carved to protect
families against sickness and other evils.
Pekoro are hollowed out sago bowls. These often have extended motifs as
handles and are used during the Kaware festival that celebrates the
resurrection of a traditional
hero. The Kamoro drums are called Eme and are as much fine art as
instruments. The playing surface is of lizard skin glued with human blood
and vegetables glue to the
drums carved from hibiscus or doa timbers.
The most impressive of the Kamoro arts is the Mbii-Kao Spirit Masks;
extraordinary confections of tree bark, plaited hibiscus and sago leaves.
The Mbii-Kao are worn over
the head and body to represent spirits during ceremonies.
Source: The Kamoro by Kal Muller
---
Police dismiss harassment of Papuan Komnas HAM
=================^==================================
I N D O L E F T - News service > >
=================^==================================
Police dismiss harassment of Papuan Komnas HAM
representative as 'subjective'
Kompas - September 26, 2007
Jakarta -- In relation to his duties and
responsibilities as a representative of the National
Human Rights Commission or Komnas HAM in Papua,
Albert Rumbekwan is a state official and cannot be
harassed when carrying out his duties.
This was raised by Komnas HAM coordinator of Yosep
Adhi Prasetyo on Tuesday September 25 when contacted
from Jakarta. Prasetyo, who is currently in Aceh,
said that Komnas HAM is concerned about the
intimidation against Rumbekwan. "Albert Rumbekwan is
a state official executing the mandate of Law No.
39/1999 on Human Rights. He cannot be harassed [like
this]", said Prasetyo.
As has been reported, last Sunday Rumbekwan's
resident in the Papuan capital of Jayapura was
broken into by unidentified individuals. In addition
to this, Rumbekwan has frequently received threats
and been terrorised over the last four months
(Kompas, 24/9).
Prasetyo suspects that the intimidation began after
Rumbekwan met with United National Special
Representative for Human Rights Hina Jilani. Because
of this therefore, Komnas HAM will be sending a
letter to the police in Papua and be meeting with
the national police chief in Jakarta.
In Jayapura, Papua regional police chief Inspector
General Max Donald Aer said he regretted that
Rumbekwan had not reported the incidents that have
befell him directly to the police. "For the last
four months, we have assigned police officers to
guard Rumbekwan. Why didn't he immediately contact
the nearest police [office]?", said Aer.
Rumbekwan felt terrorised during a blackout when
unidentified individuals entered his house.
"According to testimonies, his neighbours said that
there was a person in the vicinity of the house.
This a subjective feeling right, feeling terrorised.
If there were people in the vicinity of Rumbekwan's
house, what were they doing? We're speaking in legal
terms here, is there is there not evidence of a
(criminal) act", said Aer.
Aer said that the police are still investigating the
incident last Sunday. (JOS/ROW)
[Translated by James Balowski.]
****************************************************
The INDOLEFT news service is produced by the
Institute of Liberation, Media and Social Studies
(LPMIS) and Action in Solidarity with Asia and the
Pacific.
To subscribe free to Indoleft send a blank message
to <subscribe-indoleft@yahoogroups.com>. To view
the archive of Indoleft posting since 2003 visit
<www.asia-pacific-action.org>.
INDOLEFT News Service
Jl. Tebet Timur Dalam VIII No. 6A
Jakarta Selatan 12820
Indonesia
E-mail: jamesbalowski@yahoo.com
***************************************************
---
Go to
http://action.humanrightsfirst.org/campaign/Djonga/we38u7b91b883mw[1]
?
to send a message.
HALT DEATH THREATS AGAINST INDONESIAN HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDERS
In a remote area of Papua, Indonesia's easternmost province, military
officials have been calling a Catholic priest a traitor and a
provocateur who should be buried 700 meters in the earth.
In recent months, Papuan human rights defenders have increasingly
faced anonymous calls or text messages and late night visits from
unidentified men. Now Pastor John Djonga has been threatened publicly
by military officials near his home.
Pastor Djonga has helped local communities defend their land from
claims by the military. In July he also reported to the governor that
the army was falsely accusing local people of being separatists and
threatening them with harsh retaliation, a persistent problem in the
region. Soon afterwards a local military official began telling
journalists and local legislators that a clergyman was causing
problems and should be killed.
When Pastor Djonga complained to the local police post, they told
him there was nothing they could do. When he complained to the
military, the Subregional Military Commander in Jayapura reportedly
told him the army would look into his claims but that, if they were
not proven, the pastor would be charged with defamation.
PLEASE CALL ON THE LEADERSHIP OF THE MILITARY AND POLICE TO
IMMEDIATELY INVESTIGATE AND ACT UPON THREATS TO PASTOR DJONGA AND
OTHER PAPUAN DEFENDERS.
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
ETAN welcomes your financial support. For more info:
http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm[2]
John M. Miller Internet: fbp@igc.org National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) PO Box 21873, Brooklyn,
NY 11202-1873 USA Phone: (718)596-7668 Fax: (718)222-4097 Mobile
phone: (917)690-4391 Skype: john.m.miller Web site:
http://www.etan.org[3]
Send a blank e-mail message to info@etan.org to find out how to
learn more about East Timor on the Internet
etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan
Links:
------
[1]
http://action.humanrightsfirst.org/campaign/Djonga/we38u7b91b883mw
[2] http://etan.org/etan/donate.htm
[3] http://www.etan.org/
---
matthew jamieson <matthew@hr.minihub.org>
Sep 29, 2007 5:29 AM
IPAHR West Papua Human Rights report 28
September 2007
Psychological intimidation and abuse of a family member of a prominent
West Papuan leader by "unknown persons"
The abduction, sedation and abuse of the 17-year-old daughter of a
prominent West Papuan Independence leader, Edison Waromi, has occurred
in Kotaraja, near Jayapura. The abduction occurred over a period of 18
hours on 25-26 September 2007.
Ms Yane Waromi provided Human Rights workers with details of an
abduction involving a group of 10 "unknown persons" believed to be
linked to the Indonesian intelligence service or military. Ms
Waromi's captors were described as being 8 Indonesian `migrants'
including two women and two Papuan men.
Human Rights workers are viewing the incident as an act of deliberate
intimidation by security forces directed at Mr Edison Waromi and other
leaders of the West Papuan community.
The site of the abduction was Waena, an outer suburb of the capital
Jayapura, close to the Cenderwasih University. Ms Waromi is reported
to have been rendered unconscious after getting into a car she thought
was a taxi. Ms Waromi was then variously abused, tortured,
threatened, held at gunpoint and drugged in a house before being found
semi-conscious near a stream in the neighbouring suburb of Kotaraja.
Human Rights workers say that although the incident has been reported
to the Police in Jayapura, they appear unwilling to properly
investigate the incident.
Human Rights workers report that during her detention Ms Waromi was
injected by unknown substances, at various sites in her hands, feet
and torso.
After Ms Waromi was released from hospital in Jayapura on 27
September, she is now at home with her family and is said to be in a
highly traumatized condition.
Ms Waromi father, Edison Waromi, is President of West Papua National
Authority, a pro-independence group. In recent months Mr. Waromi is
reported to have been sent SMS messages that he is on a black list to
be kidnapped and killed.
This incident has occurred in a political context in West Papua where
prominent political, religious and community leaders and their
families report increasing levels of intimidation and close
surveillance by Indonesian intelligence agents.
During the last two months, one Papuan Human Rights worker in Nabire
has been died in a `mysterious killing', reportedly by Indonesian
security forces. Other `mysterious killings' and `accidental' deaths
are reported to have occurred both in Nabire and Jayapura.
The killing of Papuans is causing severe intimidation of community
leaders and now the abuse of a family member of a prominent Papuan
suggests that Indonesian security forces in West Papua are stepping up
the psychological campaign against the West Papuan community.
Human Rights workers in West Papua report that since visit of the UN
representative Ms Hila Jilani in June and the unsuccessful visit of US
congressman Eni Faleomavega in July, there has been an increased
intensity of incidents involving threats and intimidation of human
rights workers, human rights lawyers, clergy, students, and
pro-independence political leaders.
Human rights workers from the most of the regional centers in West
Papua describe a deteriorating human rights environment. There are
also reports of increased troop numbers in many areas and, from the
remote Puncak Jaya region, accounts of further deaths associated with
the operations by security forces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For further information contact:
Matthew Jamieson, Institute for Papua Advocacy & Human Rights +61
418291998
Paula Makabory, Els–ham West Papua +61 402547517
Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights
PO Box 1805, Byron Bay NSW 2481 Australia
matthew@hr.minihub.org
---
Indonesian Solidarity and the West Paper Project conference:
West Papua: Paths to Justice and Prosperity.
Sydney University, August 9-10, 2007.
Full version of paper, by Dr. Jim Elmslie,
West Papua: Genocide, Demographic Change, the Issue of
‘Intent’, and the Australia-Indonesia Security Treaty.
Extract:
The issue of genocide is still open. The issue of intent is unclear. But
that does not gainsay that a terrible human rights tragedy is happening
to the West Papuan peoples,
a tragedy that compels public spirited people of good faith to speak out,
especially those in Australia, West Papua’s closest neighbour.
Australia’s future relationship with
Indonesia, for better or worse, will depend on how the issues surrounding
West Papua are addressed. To ignore the dilemmas, to try to criminalize
concern for our fellow
human beings, will not avert the tragedy. To frankly assert that the
political situation in West Papua is of legitimate concern to Australia,
for instance in the repercussions
caused by refugees fleeing that situation, is only common sense.
Principled, high-level dialogue between West Papuan leaders and the
Indonesian government, rather than
increased militarisation, is the only way to start addressing this
profound conflict. Otherwise the future of
Australia--Indonesia relations may be as bleak as that of the West Papuans.
Recently the issue of West Papuan repression and the struggle for
independence has received a lot of attention in Australia following the
arrival of 43 West Papuan
refugees in January 2006. They claimed that they were escaping political
repression and human rights violations and that their lives would be in
danger if they returned to
Indonesia. Furthermore they stated that a process of genocide was
occurring in West Papua. The Australian government accepted the first of
these claims and granted
Temporary Protection Visas to 42 of the group within three months, the
final applicant having to wait some months longer. The response by the
Indonesian government was
swift and furious: the Indonesian Ambassador was recalled to Jakarta and
Australian/Indonesian relations were, once again, thrown into turmoil.
Although the Australian government went to great lengths to try and
reassure the Indonesian government that there was no official support
for the separatist movement in
Papua, the wounds left over from Australia’s involvement in the
independence of East Timor are still very raw for many in Jakarta. Deep
with-in the collective Indonesian
political psyche there remain great misgivings over Australia’s true
intentions for West Papua. Many believe that Australia wants to wrest
control of the province for its vast
resource wealth, leading to the break-up of the Indonesian state. The
stakes in this debate are, therefore, very high.
One consequence of the arrival of the refugees has been an enlarged
debate in Australia on what is actually occurring in West Papua and what
action, if any, Australia
should be taking. This is now a two sided debate: previously those groups
and individuals opposed to Jakarta’s rule over West Papua; whether
calling for an end to the well
documented human rights abuses or, at the other extreme, full
independence, were the only voices heard. Perhaps the most powerful recent
document of this genre was
from the West Papua Project at Sydney University, which published a report
entitled, Genocide in West Papua?[1] The Australian Government’s
comment on the issue was
to repeat, endlessly, its recognition of Indonesian sovereignty over
(West) Papua[2].
With the refugee imbroglio finally came some measured response from the
conservative/government camp in the form of a report by Dr. McGibbon
entitled, Pitfalls of
Papua: Understanding the conflict and its place in Australia –
Indonesia relations[3]. This report characterised those academics, church
people and activists who supported
the West Papuans and their rights as the ‘Papuan constituency’,
who, although “motivated by high-minded intentions[4]” in their
efforts to “raise legitimate concerns about
human rights abuses in Papua[5]”, were essentially a negative force.
They had “generated unrealistic expectations among Papuans regarding
international support that has
complicated the conflict[6]”.
The report described the so-called ‘Papuan constituency’
platform as being underpinned by seven myths that they had foisted on an
uncritical Australian public which
were false, and worse, dangerous to Australia’s relationship with
Indonesia, and by extension, our national interests in the entire South
East Asian region. The report
argued that our relationship with Indonesia was imperilled by the Papua
Constituency’s calls for West Papuan independence, implicit in which
is the partial break-up of
Indonesia. This meant that issues of national importance, such as efforts
to halt refugee flows; sponsorship at international forums, such as ASEAN
and APEC;
transportation of Australian exports through Indonesian waters; combating
bird-flu; trade; investment; Indonesian students; and Australia’s
‘war on terror’ were all similarly
imperilled.
The first and most important myth that McGibbon sought to debunk was
that of a West Papuan genocide[7]. This is an issue I would like to
examine in some detail, as it is
central to the arguments of both camps. Certainly it is germane to
acknowledge here that many West Papuans, besides the 43 refugees as
mentioned above, have made
this claim with great sincerity and conviction[8].
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1951).
The central document in discussing genocide is the 1951 United Nations
Convention. This document was drafted in the late 1940’s in
response to the Nazi holocaust and
called genocide an ‘odious scourge[9]’, which it undoubtedly is.
It recognized that ‘at all periods of history genocide has inflicted
great losses on humanity[10]’, in other
words that genocide was a common, or at least not rare phenomenon. The
document is brief (three pages) and I would argue, loose in its
terminology. Although large-scale
genocides such as the holocaust or the more recent Rwanda event, spring to
mind on hearing the term, the convention does not preclude other smaller,
less dramatic
intentional mass killings directed at a particular group.
The key section of the Genocide Convention is Article II, which states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts
committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national,
ethnical, racial or religious group, as
such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life
calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The strategy that McGibbon employs to refute the allegation that
genocide has occurred is to focus on the word ‘intent’ rather
than deny that any of the above acts have
actually taken place. This is the argument that has been used in denying
that a genocide occurred to the Australian Aboriginal population: it was
not the government’s
‘intention’ that these above acts occurred (which they did),
therefore they can be seen as historical abuses and crimes but not
genocide. I will discus the issue of ‘intent’
further below.
There are several pertinent points made in the Convention which cloud
the black and white nature of denying genocide by simplistically
applying the veto bar of ‘intent’ --
generally taken to mean the intention of the State, being the legitimate
government of a sovereign nation.
Firstly, Article IV states that: ‘Persons committing
genocide……shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally
responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.’ In
other words genocide does not necessarily have to involve a State acting
with ‘intent’; public officials (i.e. members of the military)
or private individuals can engage in
genocide without State sanction.
Secondly, under Article VI, if persons have engaged in genocide it is
the obligation of the State in which these crimes occurred to prosecute
these individuals.
Thirdly, under Article VIII, ‘any Contracting Party may call upon
the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the
Charter of the United Nations as
they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of
genocide.’ I would argue that any ‘Contracting Party’ has
an obligation to ‘call upon’ the UN when a
possible act of genocide is encountered. This obligation derives from
Article I which states, the ‘Contracting Parties confirm that
genocide……..is a crime under international
law which they undertake to prevent and punish.’ The signatories of
the Convention are therefore duty-bound to report to the United Nations
possible acts of genocide,
whether by sovereign States or individuals within those States.
Claims of genocide are thus of a different order of magnitude than
allegations of human rights abuses. States can raise human rights abuses
with other States or not, as
they please; they are not obligated to under any United Nations
convention. However they do not have this discretion in relation to claims
of genocide: they have undertaken
to prevent and punish genocide, which means investigating claims of
genocide. This is because genocide is such an evil crime with devastating
consequences, and
obviously, States engaged in such a crime may seek to hide and deny their
activities.
Demographic transition in West Papua in relation to claims of genocide.
I have mentioned that the situation in West Papua is not akin to the
holocaust: there are no death camps; no specifically designed
incinerators and no Government
policies or statements such as Hitler made in relation to the Jewish
people. West Papua is also not like Rwanda, where 800,000 people were
killed in the space of a few
months in a clearly agreed act of genocide. The killings in West Papua
have taken place, as Clements Runawery has noted, over a period of
decades, a ‘slow-motion
genocide’, and not in the compressed time frame of Rwanda[11].
Over the last 43 years in West Papua there have been many killings;
disappearances; land expropriations and repressive Indonesian government
policies that have
severely affected the demographics of the province. These may, as many
West Papuans claim, constitute genocide and puts the onus under the 1951
Convention for
signatories to investigate the veracity or otherwise of these claims.
An examination of successive Indonesian government censuses reveals the
changing demographics of West Papua. I have used as my starting point
the 1971 census
conducted by the Indonesian Statistics Office. An argument could be made
that it would be more appropriate to use earlier figures dating to the
effective takeover by
Indonesia in 1963, however this would entail drawing on Dutch colonial
sources, which would be open to dispute by some. Using entirely Indonesian
sources makes
comparison between and across different census periods less contentious.
In 1971 there were 887,000 ‘Irian born’ (Papuan) people in
West Papua and 36,000 ‘non-Irian born’ (Asian Indonesians),
out of a total population of 923,000. This meant
that, even after eight years of Indonesian control, Papuans comprised 96%
of the population in 1971[12].
Thereafter the distinction between Irian born and non-Irian became less
relevant as, obviously, children of non-Irian born migrants were Irian
born. I have derived the
figure for the Papuan population in the 1990 census by dividing the
population into those who speak Bahasa Indonesia as a ‘mother
tongue’ and those who do not. This is
because the census does not record the racial profile of the province. On
this basis there were 1,215,897 Papuans and 414,210 non-Papuans in 1990
out of a total
population of 1,630,107. Papuans comprised 74.6% of the total and
non-Papuans 25.4%[13]
The growth in the Papuan population from 887,000 to 1,215,897 during the
period from 1971 to 1990 represents an annual growth rate of 1.67%.
Assuming that this
growth rate continued to 2005, the latest figures released by the
Indonesian Statistics Office, the Papua population would be 1,558,795 out
of a total population of
2,646,489[14] and the non-Papuan population 1,087,694. This means that
Papuans comprised 59% of the population and non-Papuans 41% in 2005.
This analysis shows that the Papuan population has diminished as a
proportion of the population from 96% to 59%, and the non-Papuan
increased from 4% to 41%. This
represents a growth in the Papuan population from 887,000 to 1,558,795 for
the period 1971 to 2005, or 75.7%. By contrast the non-Papuan sector of
the population has
increased from 36,000 to 1,087,694, a growth of 3021% or more than 30
times. This represents an annual growth rate in the non-Papuan population
of 10.5% from 1971 to
2005.
Using the two growth rates for the Papuan and non-Papuan populations,
1.67% and 10.5% respectively, we can predict future population growth
and relative percentages
of the two groups. By 2011 out of a total population of 3.7 million,
Papuans would be a minority of 47.5% at 1.7 million and non-Papuans a
majority at 1.98 million, or
53.5%. This non-Papuan majority will increase to 70.8% by 2020 out of a
population of 6.7 million. By 2030 Papuans will comprise just 15.2% of a
total population of 15.6
million, while non-Papuans will number 13.2 million, or 84.8%. This may be
an unduly optimistic forecast for the Papuan population as the current
HIV-AIDS epidemic is
firmly established in that population group and could have an
African-style impact, cutting numbers and growth rates even further.
Besides the relative decline of the Papuans as a percentage of the
population they have also enjoyed a much lower growth rate than a very
similar Melanesian Papuan
population across the border in Papua New Guinea. Here the population has
been growing at 2.6% per annum since independence in 1975. PNG acts almost
as a control
population when examining Papuan growth rates as the indigenous people on
both sides of the border are closely related and settled in societies that
had, until very
recently, been self-contained for thousands of years. If the Papuans under
Indonesian control had enjoyed the same growth rate as those in
independent Papua New
Guinea, 2.6%, their population would be 2,122,921, or 564,126 more than it
was in 2005. This demographic discrepancy can be attributed to Indonesian
rule.
Thus from a position of comprising 96% of the total population in 1971,
Papuans will be a small and dwindling minority within a generation or
two. This will have great
consequences for Papua New Guinea as Indonesian military/business groups
engage ever more deeply in that country, particularly in the logging and
retail industries. With
the increasing militarisation of West Papua, particularly in the border
regions, PNG’s own security may come under threat.
The issue of ‘intent’.
Why would there be such a variance in growth rates between two such
similar population groups? Especially when health services in both
countries are at very basic
levels and declining in PNG as part of the general malaise of the public
sector. I will list several factors, but by no means all, that, in
combination, go some way towards
explaining this variation.
Firstly, the use of contraception programmes funded by the United
Nations in Highland areas like the Baliem Valley, where the population
already suffers high rates of
sexually transmitted disease, such as gonorrhoea. This disease causes
infertility if untreated. Not only is gonorrhoea not treated, the suffers
are given long lasting
contraceptive injections. Collectively this lowers fertility.
Secondly, Indonesian military (TNI)-backed prostitution utilizing the
services of women from other parts of Indonesia who are HIV positive. In
remote parts of West Papua
sexual services are provided in exchange for the valuable sap of the eagle
wood tree, gaharu, which is used as an incense by Islamic societies in
Jakarta and elsewhere.
This has resulted in what leading Indonesian scholar, George Aditjondro,
calls ‘micro-genocides’: remote groups of men becoming infected
by contact with prostitutes who
then infect their wives, leading to the decline of the whole group[15].
Whether the HIV positive prostitutes are supplied by the military with the
intention of spreading the
disease and therefore causing the deaths of Papuan groups, or whether this
is an incidental side effect, the result is the same.
Thirdly, dislocation of communities by large-scale logging and mining
operations that destroy traditional lands and ways of life also affect
fertility and general health. In
some cases forced prostitution of village women and girls to forestry
workers also results in their exposure to STD’s as well as a break
down in traditional family life.
Fourthly, there are also the direct killings, disappearances and
imprisonment of West Papuans that date back to the time of the
Indonesian takeover in 1963 and continue
to the present. Due to the circumstances in which these crimes have been
committed it is extremely difficult to compile an accurate death toll.
This has been completed in
East Timor, but only after the occupying Indonesian forces left and open
access to the whole country became possible. The fact that the same
Indonesian military forces,
with the same military personnel who served in East Timor, are operating
with complete impunity in West Papua, would lead one to expect similar
tactics and hence results.
The forces listed above all impact on population growth rates but do
they constitute genocide? Dr. McGibbon has said no, because he does not
see ‘intent’ in these
actions. But is this merely a case of semantics? Certainly the people who
are suffering under this crushing demographic transition find it a moot
point if there is ‘intent’ or
not, the result: lower growth rates; marginalisation; dispossession;
minoritisation; widespread death, misery and suffering, are the same. In
fact the changing demographic
is laying the groundwork for a Rwandan style genocide as two starkly
different racial/religious groups conflict on many levels.
Is this proof of a genocide? No, but neither can the claim be dismissed.
Without further research it is impossible to say whether genocide has
occurred or is occurring
now. That the crimes listed in Article II of the Convention have occurred
has been well documented in the affirmative (with the exception of (e)).
The result of Indonesian
government policies has been the rapid increase of one sector of the
population, the Asian, mainly Muslim sector who completely dominate the
senior military, educational
and business realms, over the relatively declining population sector of
indigenous, Melanesian, Christian/Animist (but also some Muslim) Papuans.
It is not hard to extend
the trends that I have outlined to see a large scale, copybook genocide in
the near future. With ‘intent.’
The necessity for debate on the West Papuan issue.
McGibbon, as mentioned above, has characterized the supporters of West
Papua as being well intentioned but naïve and potentially dangerous to
Australia’s strategic
interests, particularly for our relationship with Indonesia, and even for
the West Papuans themselves. I would remind Dr. McGibbon that the island
of New Guinea has
always been of great interest and importance to Australia and to
Australians, and that what happens on that island is of vital concern for
us as a nation, now and in the
future. It is absolutely necessary that the great demographic changes that
are occurring, and the devastating consequences of these changes, are
debated.
The south-east portion of New Guinea first came under Australian control
in 1883 when the colony of Queensland declared this to be the new colony
of ‘Papua’. The
British government pointed out that as Queensland itself was a colony it
was unable to ‘colonise’ another territory. The British then,
somewhat reluctantly, proclaimed the
colony of British Papua – they were loath to take on any more
non-viable obscure colonies when their empire already spanned the world,
but felt obliged to placate
Australian and Queensland domestic sentiment. The motivation of the
Queenslanders’ was to prevent foreign interests such as the French,
the Germans or the Russians,
claiming parts of New Guinea, which is adjacent to Far North Queensland,
and threatening their security.
In the World War One, Australia’s first armed engagement was
capturing the small German garrison in Rabaul. It was seen as vital to
this country that German New
Guinea came under Australian, as opposed to any other country’s
control. This point was emphasized during the negotiations for the Treaty
of Versailles. Australian Prime
Minister, Billy Hughes, spent 18 months in Europe vigorously defending
Australian interests against US President Wilson’s policy of
‘universalism’, which would have given
all allies equal rights over Germany’s colonial possessions. Hughes
wanted control over German New Guinea and he particularly did not want the
Japanese (allies in WWI)
to have equal access to the region, which would have seriously weakened
Australia’s strategic position. This view was vindicated in the
Second World War.
National interest was again at stake when Australian troops fought and
beat the Japanese army in New Guinea during WWII. It was seen as the
battleground for Australia
itself, although some dispute that view now. If a hostile nation ever took
control of PNG it would obviously be very much against our interests.
Therefore we have a vested interest in trying to understand the
processes that are happening on the island of New Guinea, in both Papua
New Guinea and in West
Papua. These strategic interests and actions all predate the formation of
the state of Indonesia from Holland’s polyglot colonial possessions
after the World War II. Concern
over current developments on the island of New Guinea, and their
implications for Australia’s strategic security position, are as
valid today as they have been for the last
120 years.
Conclusion.
The debate is not about independence for West Papua: it is about the
survival of the West Papuan people as a viable Melanesian population.
Although any informed
objective observer would agree that the overwhelming majority of West
Papuans want independence and that they have been denied it due to the
machinations of
international diplomacy, especially a particular interpretation of US
strategic interests during the Cold War, they continue to suffer the
outrages any army of occupation
imposes on its subject population and independence is still a far off
dream. No country other than Vanuatu supports them and they are too
numerically, politically,
economically and militarily weak to be a credible threat to the Indonesian
state.
However dreams sometimes do come true, as we all saw with East Timor,
but they require tumultuous events to break political deadlocks.
Suharto’s fall led to a free East
Timor. The Boxing Day tsunami broke the impasse in Aceh. Is there a
similar such event that could transform reality in West Papua? Who knows,
but history is full of the
unexpected, and PNG the land of. At least one possibility is a socially
radical Islamic revolution in Indonesia, as it becomes apparent that the
thin veil of democracy has
only served to further entrench the power and wealth of a small but
fabulously privileged elite. This would cause the US to reassess its
strategic interests in the region, and
particularly the status of West Papua.
The human rights situation is getting worse in West Papua, not better.
Even the Australian government is forced to concede this when issuing
Temporary Protection Visas
to West Papuan refugees. The massive inflow of migrants and soldiers, and
the rapid economic development of the logging, mining and oil and gas
industries are fuelling
repression and conflict. In economics trends are your friends: they show
the future and it is not good. Rather than acknowledging a deteriorating
reality on the ground
caused by the increasing militarisation of West Papua, the Australian
government has decided to sign a security treaty with Indonesia aimed, in
part, to suppress support
for West Papuan self-determination and human rights in Australia. This may
well turn out to be a major headache for the government because what the
Indonesians clearly
see as a consequence of the treaty -- stamping out support in Australia
for the West Papuan cause -- flies in the face of our basic rights of
free speech and expression, and political realities here.
While providing material aid to an armed rebel group fighting the
legitimate government of a friendly nation is illegal, speaking out
against outrageous human rights abuses
and peacefully supporting an oppressed minority’s right to
self-determination is not. If the Australian government tries to crack
down on domestic West Papuan supporters
in the manner that Indonesia expects and may demand, it risks a massive
backlash by the Australia public as the dire situation in West Papua
becomes more widely
known. One has only to recall how East Timor became a mass emotional issue
in Australia, almost overnight, to see how quickly public opinion can
shift on these issues.
That would leave the whole relationship with Indonesia in a very deep
hole. And yet if the government does nothing to reign in West Papuan
supporters the Indonesians
may very well call the entire treaty a sham and walk off in a huff; as
they did with the last Keating era treaty during the East Timor conflict.
With this treaty the Howard government is putting itself between a rock
and a hard place.
The issue of genocide is still open. The issue of intent is unclear. But
that does not gainsay that a terrible human rights tragedy is happening
to the West Papuan peoples,
a tragedy that compels public spirited people of good faith to speak out,
especially those in Australia, West Papua’s closest neighbour.
Australia’s future relationship with
Indonesia, for better or worse, will depend on how the issues surrounding
West Papua are addressed. To ignore the dilemmas, to try to criminalize
concern for our fellow
human beings, will not avert the tragedy. To frankly assert that the
political situation in West Papua is of legitimate concern to Australia,
for instance in the repercussions
caused by refugees fleeing that situation, is only common sense.
Principled, high-level dialogue between West Papuan leaders and the
Indonesian government, rather than
increased militarisation, is the only way to start addressing this
profound conflict. Otherwise the future of
Australia--Indonesia relations may be as bleak as that of the West Papuans.
About the author:
Dr. Jim Elmslie has published, Irian Jaya Under the Gun: Indonesian
Economic Growth versus West Papuan Nationalism, (Crawford House and
University of Hawaii
Press, 2002). He was founding co-convenor of the West Papua Project,
University of Sydney, in 2000, and is a Research Fellow with the Centre
for Peace and Conflict
Studies, University of Sydney.
Paula Makarbury, Melboure, Australia
+61-402-57517
John Rumbiak - Supervisor, New York City, USA
+ 1-212-929-4958
Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy, West Papua
---
Tuesday: September 11, 2007
(Pacific Conference of Churches)
The following statement was approved as a resolution of the Pacific
Conference of Churches 9th Assembly in Pago Pago, American Samoa which
ended on Saturday 8th
September, 2007:
"The PCC Assembly wishes to express its solidarity with the peoples of
West Papua. We deplore the ongoing denial of self-determination for the
indigenous peoples of
West Papua and specifically the violation of the basic rights of those
peoples by the Indonesian government.
Specifically, we deplore the massive exploitation and destruction of the
rich natural resources of this island by the administration and by foreign
investors without consent
and against the interests of the peoples of West Papua. Further we deplore
the violation of rights such as freedom of opinion and the denial of the
formation of democratic
structures, the forced expropriation of customary land, deprivation of
fair court cases, lack of access of the indigenous people of West Papua to
high public offices. We
also deplore the relocation and persecution of specific ethnic groups in
conjunction with the migration, mining and logging.
We therefore recommend that the PCC:
• Call on the International Community, and the World Council of Churches
to seriously look in to those and other concerns and to publicly and
adequately address
those matters in the interest for the future of those Melanesian brothers
and sisters within our Pacific region.
Pacific Conference of Churches also stands in solidarity with attempts
made by churches & civil societies in the Pacific in their move to be
freed by forces that affect the
daily lives of the Pacific People eg: coup culture and ethnic tension."
---
Watch Indonesia! - Information & Analysis, 28 September 2007
Carbon dealers - Papua and Aceh
Marianne Klute
Aceh and Papua have taken the initiative in Indonesia against global
warming: They want to limit the destruction of tropical forests and thus
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They are negotiating finance mechanisms
for forest protection, and Aceh has even decided to impose a logging
moratorium. Nobody can predict whether those steps will lead to success.
Two things are certain: They are challenging Indonesia’s climate and
forestry policies, and they will cost industrialised nations a great
deal of money.
Roundtable: Climate Change
Informed readers will know that Indonesia is the third biggest emitter
of greenhouse gases worldwide, after the United States and China. The
causes are annual forest fires, emissions from peat drainage and fires,
and rampant deforestation, which is happening at a faster pace than
anywhere else in the world. Indonesia is therefore subject to intense
criticism during climate debates. Given that the UN Climate Change
Conference of Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 13) is due
to take place in Bali in December 2007, Indonesia is under acute
pressure to act. In Jakarta, hardly anybody seems to be concerned with
preparing for COP13, whilst Jayapura and Banda Aceh show determination
to act.
As part of the preparations for the UN climate conference, a
high-powered Three Governors’ Roundtable was held in the upmarket resort
of Nusa Dua in Bali. It was attended by Barnabas Suebu (Governor of
Papua), Irwandi Yusuf (Governor of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam) and Abraham
Aturui (Governor of Papua Barat, before April called Irian Jaya Barat).
The organisers and sponsors of the Roundtable included the Australian
government, the World Bank and some other organisations such as Flora
and Fauna International (FFI) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).
On the agenda was nothing less than a common policy to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. The governors decided to make economic development in
their provinces more environmentally friendly and sustainable, primarily
by reducing deforestation. They hope to achieve this through some
remarkable measures: Aceh agreed to stop logging. The moratorium which
was announced has now been enacted. Through a logging moratorium, Aceh
hopes to gain time for revising its forestry policy. Papua is determined
to outlaw the export of wood. Suebu and Aturui did not have the courage
to follow the example of Aceh and ban logging completely. For the time
being they plan to examine concessions and, if necessary, revoke them if
they cannot change the local forestry industry for the better in the two
Papuan provinces.
The most important result of the Roundtable is the decision, to protect
part of the forest from destruction. The initial idea was to protect
half of the ten million hectares of ‘conversion forest’ which Jakarta
seeks to ‘convert’ to plantations and to maintain those with the help of
carbon finance. The original plan, however, had to be scaled down. The
decision was to protect not five but just one million hectares. Several
pilot projects are planned in the provinces, covering at least 500,000
hectares of forest in Papua. If they succeed then Suebu promises to
expand the area to four million hectares.
In order to realise those hopeful plans, Papua and Aceh require
international support in the form of finance according to the carbon
trading model, as well as technology transfer. The aim is a new model of
‘Avoided Deforestation’, in which money is paid not for afforestation
and reforestation, but for protecting natural forests. The Australian
government has promised $AS 200 million for avoided deforestation,
afforestation and for sustainable forestry. A large proportion of the
money, however, will be paid via the government in Jakarta, not directly
to Aceh and Papua.
The Governors’ Roundtable sends a clear signal to the international
community that Indonesians are aware of the international climate debate
and their own responsibilities. Aceh and Papua demonstrate the firm will
to finally put an end to deforestation. Not without good reason, since
the governors confirmed in a joint declaration: „We are aware of our
special role as stewards of Indonesia’s largest natural forests”.
Aceh and Papua: Conflict in the Forest
Aceh and Papua are often mentioned in the same breath when speaking
about Indonesia’s conflict zones. The two regions are several thousand
kilometres apart, but they have some things in common: Rich natural
resources, a geo-politically important position and a long history of
wars and independence dreams. Indonesia’s westernmost province, Nanggroe
Aceh Darussalam, and the two Papuan provinces (Papua and Papua Barat)
furthest to the east also have rights under Special Autonomy laws.
Aceh and Papua have a lot more in common: They harbour the last large
connected rainforests in Indonesia. Those forests, however, are no
longer intact. The conflicts exacted a heavy price from the forest. It
is not at all true that the forests only exist because wars offer a
certain protection, as some authors claim. Quite the opposite: In Aceh,
both conflict parties financed their arms with tropical timber.
Both areas also share the fact that illegal logging has greatly
increased in recent years, Since the 1990s, when Aceh was a military
operations zone, forests are being mercilessly cut down. Following the
tsunami, pressures on the forest have grown frighteningly. The forestry
ministry has granted logging permissions to five companies „for the
reconstruction of Aceh”. A large part of that timber never reached the
areas affected by the tsunami but founds its way, via Medan and Malaysia
and Singapore onto the word market. This is why the market in illegal
construction timber from the Leuser ecosystem is blooming in
neighbouring regions.
Papua has been favoured by an international timber mafia. Companies from
all over South-east Asia and East Asia flog off tropical timber, in
particular Merbau, to the 500 new timber factories in Hainan Province
which in turn sell it on to most parts of the world. There is no doubt
that the army in Papua cannot be overlooked amongst the players in the
tropical timber business. There are multiple reasons for the abrupt
start of the Run on Papua: Elsewhere in Indonesia, tropical forests have
become almost a rarity. Decentralisation opened the door widely to an
even more brutal destruction of forests. When China prohibited logging
in its own territory, following the Yangtze flooding in 1998 (almost at
the same time as Suharto’s resignation), they had to look abroad for
supplies: To Papua, Russia and many other countries.
Right now, the strong demand for palm oil for bioenergy and diesel is
the driving force behind the destruction of the forests. Fire is often
used to clear the land. The Indonesian government is pursuing ambitious
plans to supply the international agrofuel market, and Papua is to
provide a large part of the required land. This means that five million
hectares of Papua are to be converted to plantations for agrofuel
feedstocks.
Every initiative for the protection of forests as globally important
carbon sinks must logically include Aceh and Papua. The Indonesian
forest policy has missed the opportunity for change and has not dared to
point the finger to exactly those hotspots. The Ministry for Forests
continues to kow-tow to the powerful logging industry and generously
hands out licences. At the same time, they try to keep the mafia in
check through policing methods. Rambo-style actions, however, can only
scratch the surface, not stop the trend. International efforts such as
the European FLEGT process and different bilateral agreements remain
ineffective. How then can deforestation be stopped and a contribution to
reducing greenhouse gas emissions be made?
Gobal Trade: Carbon dioxide
„This is brilliant – one protects the forest and gets even paid for it“,
says a jubilant Bass Suebu. He has seen how forests can be protected in
Costa Rica, a country which he visited from Mexico, where he was
Indonesia’s ambassador. Costa Rica has had success in curbing
deforestation, and is promoting its ‘Payments for Environmental
Services’ as a model for other rainforest nations. In actual fact, Costa
Rica’s success is based on a logging ban, together with payments for
‘avoided deforestation’ that are financed through an energy tax and
international donations. They have been trying unsuccessfully to obtain
carbon funding: The price at which carbon is being traded is not nearly
high enough to meet the cost of their scheme. Nonetheless, Costa Rica
have convinced other governments and politicians, including the Papuan
Governor Bass Suebu, that the carbon markets could, in future, help to
protect the world’s rainforests. The Coalition for Rainforest Nations
was formed in 2005. 33 countries with tropical forests are members,
including Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. It advocates a model based not
on regulation or logging bans, but on payments financed largely through
the carbon trade, something which would require an amendment to the
Kyoto Protocol. The governors of Papua, Aceh and Papua Barat strongly
support this scheme. The Coalition for Rainforest Nations and their
supporters, including many scientists, argue that the Kyoto Protocol
contains a major flaw by failing to reward developing nations (non-Annex
1 countries) which protect their forests, even though deforestation is
responsible for some 18% of greenhouse gas emissions and peat drainage
for even more. The Kyoto Protocol allows industrialised ‘Annex 1’
nations to buy the right to emit more carbon dioxide by paying for
projects in developing countries. This can include paying for
monoculture timber plantations, classed as ‘afforestation’ and
‘reforestation’ projects (though so far only one such project has been
approved under the Clean Development Mechanism), but it cannot involve
protecting old-growth forests – even though a hectare of monoculture
plantations stores at best a quarter of the carbon held in old-growth
forests, and monocultures do not meet essential functions of natural
forests, such as maintaining biodiversity, soils or the water cycle.
The call by the Coalition for Rainforest Nations that the protection of
natural forests should be rewarded has therefore gained widespread
support. During the United Nations climate conference in Bali this year,
nations will debate about a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol,
which will expire in 2012. The proposal submitted by the Coalition for
Rainforest Nations will be debated at the forthcoming UN climate
conference in Bali, under the name „Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation in Developing Countries’ (REDD). The World Bank will
present their planned $250 million pilot project for protecting tropical
forests, which is compatible with the REDD proposals.
The three governors, Suebu, Irwandi and Aturui can thus be optimistic
that the international community will approve of their strategy for
‘avoiding deforestation’. The proclamation made during their Governors’
Roundtable might set a precedent for a possible resolution at Bali in
December and might lead to a binding international agreement.
Within Indonesia, the three governors have a difficult position: Right
after Suebu’s election as Governor of Papua in December 2006, President
Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) called him for a meeting. SBY supports
agrofuels (‘bio-diesel’) as the engine of the economic development. He
hopes that investments in the plantation sector will create 3.5 million
new jobs. The President demanded that Papua should immediately promise
five million hectares of forest for conversion to oil palms and other
plantations. Suebu was annoyed. He has enough problems with the timber
companies holding logging concessions, their illegal activities and what
he regards as the ‚backwardness’ of his people. According to
well-informed sources he said „not with us”. Papua should not become
like Kalimantan, where the forest will soon be gone and many animal
species are becoming extinct. It is not known whether SBY was also
angry. However, he reacted instantly. By January, a huge five-billion
dollar deal was clinched with China National Offshore Oil Corporation
(CNOOP) and their Indonesian counter part, PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources
(SMART). The plantations were to be established in Papua. Since then
other companies have declared an interest. Some of them have already
successfully acquired land with the support of Jakarta and of local
district politicians.
Question: Ecology or economy?
What appears as a clear conflict between ecology and economy is far
more: The governors of Papua themselves have grand plans for the
development of West Papua. They also bank on economic development and
compete with SBY in attracting investors. Fantastic ideas have been
airs, of which even cities like Berlin or London could only dream, such
as a ‘sky train’. Bupati (district heads) and other local politicians
copy them. Development is to financed above all with the ‘green gold’
palm oil and for that the forest has to be cleared. At the same time,
some politicians seem to have understood the arithmetic of the carbon
trade in no time – not just a few bupati in Papua who suddenly sell
their forests not to logging companies but to carbon dealers. The
governor of Bengkulu has just returned from a rather spontaneous trip to
the US where he offered his forest to people in the US for the price of
$2.5 billion. It could pay off financially to demonstrate to the
international community that one wants to protect the forest in order to
contribute to the fight against climate change.
Torn between climate change and investment policies, attractive offers
might move other Indonesian politicians to think again. In the
long-term, what Nicholas Stern1 said in his report on the economics of
climate change: That climate change mitigation and economic growth and
development do not have to compete with each other. This would solve the
conflict become economy and ecology.
Greenpeace has calculated, based on emissions from peat soils in
Kalimantan, that Indonesia could earn more from carbon trading than from
converting peat forests into oil palm plantations. If one also considers
that plantation companies are known to the Ministry of Finance as
notorious tax evaders, the state could earn more from carbon trading
than from the whole of the palm oil industry. But, of course, only as
long as the forest still exists.
This is what a calculation similar to Greenpeace’s might look like for
Papua: Provided that one million hectares are protected under the REDD
model and every year 50,000 hectares are saved from clear-cutting, Papua
could earn $50 to $100 million, based on a low price of $10 per tonne of
carbon dioxide. This is a sum which even an economist will not dismiss.
If more deforestation is avoided, or if the price per tonne of carbon is
set higher, then the result would be even better. The avoidance strategy
could become profitable.
If the example set by the ‚special autonomous provinces’ of Aceh and
Papua gain support then truly huge sums of money will be on the table.
Big sums of money lure big crooks. Just a few weeks after the Roundtable
in April, obscure carbon traders appeared in Indonesia. Criminal
activities and corruption are an acute threat to society, and without a
functioning administration and a corruption-free political environment,
the nice economic success could become rather one-sided.
Other unsolved problems are how the funding should be managed, what
special training of provincial civil servants may be required and who
should benefit from the money. Should it be the plantation companies,
which need to forgo palm oil profits? Should it be the government budget
which, under Indonesian law, owns the forest? Or the special autonomous
provinces? Or should the money go to the indigenous peoples so that they
can continue to live in harmony with nature and, through their way of
living, sustain the forest? And how will they deal with the social and
psychological effects of this sudden monetary gain within their villages
and families?
This could backfire fort the environment, too. Biofuelwatch see a
fundamental flaw in the concept about avoided emissions. The biosphere
has a deficit in carbon sinks, because humans release 50% more carbon
dioxide than can be sequestered by oceans and by forests and other
ecosystems. Given that some ecosystems are on the verge of collapse, it
is not enough to conserve percentages of the forests 2.
Attractive as the avoidance strategy might sound, it will only be
possible to realise it for a small fraction of the forests. If
deforestation can be avoided for one million hectares of Papuan forests,
that means that the other nine million hectares of ‘conversion forest’,
for which no finance mechanism is being negotiated, will not be spared
from destruction. According to Biofuelwatch, that scenario is not the
unfortunate side effect of an otherwise beautiful concept for saving
climate and forest, but an integral component of the plans for dividing
our planet.
Experiment Aceh: Moratorium
Anthropogenic emissions should actually be reduced. This would logically
mean conserving the forests as carbon sinks. In practice, this would
mean leaving the forest as it is and banning industrial logging. A
logging moratorium gives the badly treated forest a breathing space.
Furthermore, as Nicholas Stern calculates in his report, the costs for
administering and controlling a logging bans are of an order of
magnitude smaller than those of paying for environmental services
through carbon trading. This would therefore be easier to finance and to
realise for the world community.
Ecosystem Earth seems to be in a fragile condition and, in view of the
already destroyed carbon sinks, a systemic approach is needed. Such an
approach requires that the people who live in and from the forest play a
key role as environmental protectors and should be honoured as such.
Basic problems need to be addressed: Land rights, the lack of
recognition for the economic and social rights of indigenous peoples,
corruption, and the discrepancy between the excess capacities of the
wood and paper industry and the insecure supplies.
Many interests, however, compete for the forest. Not only the local
people want to assert their land rights – others also want to get hold
of them. Diverse industries compete for land, the pulp and paper
industry wants to expand, politicians try to attract investment into
infrastructure. The state is in a no-win situation: It banks on economic
growth and development but deprives future generations of the
foundations for either through aggressive deforestation; it suffers
enormous losses in taxes and payments, has to confront increasing land
conflicts and has to manage ever more frequent catastrophes.
The forest law enforcement and certification models do not work, because
the roots of the evil, the basic unsolved problems within Indonesia, are
left untouched. Neither EU funding for Leuser National Park, nor the
EU-FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade) process have
turned out to be suitable instruments for stopping rainforest
destruction. FLEGT is restricted to voluntary agreements regarding the
import of tropical hardwood into the EU and does not address growing
demand in the consumer countries. Voluntary certification models offer
nothing but an illusion of sustainability and often result in more
rigorous clear-cutting elsewhere.
Aceh is a hotspot of the above mentioned problems and conflicts. Every
year, Aceh loses around 20,000 hectares of forest. The contribution of
illegal logging is high. According to the environmental NGO Walhi
(Friends of the Earth Indonesia), 2.79 million cubic metres of forest
were cut illegally in 2006 alone. Walhi estimate a loss of 260 million
Euros, not including the costs of flooding, land slides and the
ecological value of the forest. Only 2% of those huge quantities were
recovered through police raids. The former GAM commander Irwandi has
therefore put forest protection right at the top of his list of
priorities right from his first days as Governor of Aceh. He has not
shied away from personally taking part in actions against illegal loggers.
He has strong counter players. Forest Minister Kaban in Jakarta did not
agree to lift the concessions for the five timber companies, quite the
opposite: Jakarta exercises enormous pressure to free further forests
for ‘conversion’. The government wants to increase the capacity of the
pulp and paper industry in Sumatra and build new pulp mills in
Kalimantan and Papua. Jakarta also sees potential for 120,000 hectares
of oil palm plantations in the south and east of Aceh. The districts
also plan the expansion of the timber industry and plantations – often
one part of the state does not know what the other one is doing. The
flow of information does not work, and the governor is facing opponents
on all sides.
„Stand up for yourself” might have been Governor Irwandi’s motto when he
opted for the initiative to conserve the tropical forests in Aceh and
thus for a contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. During the
Governors’ Roundtable, he promised to do what he could to protect the
forest. Clear decisions were made.
Irwandi doesn’t regard the moratorium as the ultimate goal of his
forestry policy. It is supposed to be a 15-year process with different
stages, a breathing space in order to reform the forestry sector. A
15-year long break should give the government of Aceh time and space to
address the existing conflicts around forest and land. Whether Irwandi
can succeed in managing the conflicts with the powerful competing
economic interests is a different issue.
During the first stage, no new concessions will be granted and an
inventory will be taken. The legal status and the physical conditions of
the forest will be examined. An independent agency is to carry out an
audit, based on which existing concessions should be withdrawn, if the
companies involved have exceeded the powers they were granted. The time
is to be used to pass legislation to allow the use of confiscated,
already cut timber and to allow for necessary imports. Eight months
after the first phase, all logging in Aceh is to be stopped. Wood would
only be allowed to come from plantations or community forests. A logging
ban has to be accompanied by measures to reduce poverty and to
strengthen social and economic rights. New jobs will have to be created,
including for those people who currently work on timber plantations.
However the conflicts of interest will play out, Aceh and Papua are
becoming actors on the international carbon market and will earn money
in the process. What matters now is how Indonesia positions itself
during the UN Climate Conference. This will show whether the rainforest
‘stewards’ will become real pioneers.
1. Nicholas Stern: Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change;
October 2006/
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
2. 'Reduced Emissions From Deforestation': Can Carbon Trading Save Our
Ecosystems? July 2007
http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/Avoided_Deforestation_Full.pdf
--
***********************************************************************
Watch Indonesia! e.V.
Arbeitsgruppe für Demokratie, Menschenrechte
und Umweltschutz in Indonesien und Osttimor
Planufer 92 d Tel./Fax +49-30-698 179 38
10967 Berlin e-mail: watchindonesia@snafu.de
http://home.snafu.de/watchin
Konto: 2127 101 Postbank Berlin (BLZ 100 100 10)
IBAN: DE96 1001 0010 0002 1271 01, BIC/SWIFT: PBNKDEFF
Bitte unterstützen Sie unsere Arbeit durch eine Spende.
Watch Indonesia! e.V. ist als gemeinnützig und besonders
förderungswürdig anerkannt.
***********************************************************************
---
=================^==================================
I N D O L E F T - News service > >
=================^==================================
Intimidation of Papuan rights representative could
tarnish Indonesia's image
Kompas - September 27, 2007
Jakarta -- The terrorisation of the Papuan chief
representative of the National Human Rights
Commission or Komnas HAM, Albert Rumbekwan, could
have an impact on Indonesia's image as a member of
the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Moreover, Amnesty International has sent a letter to
the president raising questions about the case.
Komnas Ham coordinator Yosep Adhi Prasetyo said on
Wednesday September 26 in Jakarta that Komnas HAM
has received a copy of the letter from Amnesty
International addressed to the president in relation
to the intimidation experience by Rumbekwan, which
was passed on by the State Secretariat.
According to Prasetyo, Komnas HAM has been asked to
assist in responding to the letter because the
intimidation can be seen as a reflection of the
government's lack of seriousness in protecting human
rights workers and activist in Indonesia. Prasetyo
also said there has been a positive response by the
Papua regional police to a letter from Komnas HAM
and Rumbekwan is now being protected by police.
Separately, Vice President Jusuf Kalla said he was
not aware of the letter from Amnesty International
to President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono raising
questions about the intimidated against Rumbekwan by
unidentified persons.
Aside from checking the letter, Kalla will also be
requesting a report on the case from those
responsible for security in Papua. "I will check and
ask them to report", said Kalla following a face-to-
face meeting with the National Construction Service
Development Institute board of directors at the Vice
Presidential Palace in Jakarta.
Many parties have declared their concern about the
intimidation experienced by Rumbekwan because as the
chief representative of Komnas HAM in Papua, he is a
state official and cannot be harassed when carrying
out his duties.
As has been reported, last week Rumbekwan's
residence in the Papuan capital of Jayapura was
broken into by an unidentified individual. In
addition to this, over the last four months
Rumbekwan has received threats and been terrorised
(Kompas, 24/9). The intimidation began after he met
with Hina Jilani, the Special Representative to the
United Nations General Secretary. (jos/har)
[Translated by James Balowski.]
****************************************************
The INDOLEFT news service is produced by the
Institute of Liberation, Media and Social Studies
(LPMIS) and Action in Solidarity with Asia and the
Pacific.
To subscribe free to Indoleft send a blank message
to <subscribe-indoleft@yahoogroups.com>. To view
the archive of Indoleft posting since 2003 visit
<www.asia-pacific-action.org>.
INDOLEFT News Service
Jl. Tebet Timur Dalam VIII No. 6A
Jakarta Selatan 12820
Indonesia
E-mail: jamesbalowski@yahoo.com
****************************************************
---
Free West Papua Campaign (UK) note:
Powes Pakop was elected Governor of the National Capital District in
the PNG elections in July 2007.
After his election victory he made this statement to the Press:
“I have a moral obligation to speak out about West Papua. I will
speak on the issue of West Papua so that it is raised as a serious
issue in Papua New Guinea and in the region so it can be addressed,
because this is a real issue. It’s been pushed under the carpet for
too long.”
http://s7digital.com/docs/books/book5/book5.htm
Book 04
Book 06
1. INTRODUCTION
2. SUMMARY OF PAPER
3. WEST PAPUAN CLAIM UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
4. THE 1969 "ACT OF FREE CHOICE (AFC)"
5. RIGHT OF WEST PAPUA AS A RECOLONISED STATE
Read Word Format Document
Read PDF Format Here
REINSCRIPTION OF WEST PAPUA
AS A COLONISED STATE AND PEOPLE
by Powes Parkop, (Master of Law)
1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper/Submission is to present the case of West
Papua/ns or West New Guinea/ns as a State and as a people entitled to
exercise the right to self-determination in International Law. The
paper outlines the legal basis for the case of West Papua in
International Law, pointing out the historical, ethno-cultural,
geographical and political basis for the rights of West Papua/ns to
self-determination.
2. SUMMARY OF PAPER
The basic contention of this paper/submission is that the Melanesian
of West Papua or West New Guinea has a valid right to self-
determination under International Law as People and as State for the
following reasons.
2.1 That West Papua as a State and a People was integrated into the
Republic of Indonesia against the wishes and aspirations of its
people and against the principles of International Law and the
charter of the United Nations.
2.2 That the Melanesians of West Papua as a State and a People had
never freely exercised their right to self-determination according to
international law, in particular according to the Charter of the
United Nations and Specific Resolutions of the General Assembly on
Decolonisation, including Resolution 1514 and 1541 of the Declaration
of the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples and
according to article 1 of both international covenant of Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights.
2.3 That the integration of West Papua as a State and a People into
the Republic of Indonesia amount to the recolonisation of West Papua
and her people by the Republic of Indonesia and not an expression of
Self-Determination as it was not a choice of the people of that State.
2.4 That West Papua has a different pre-colonial, colonial and
decolonisation history to that of Indonesia. Whereas Indonesia was at
various times part of various pre-colonial empires that exist in that
region, West Papua was never part of such empires. Whereas Indonesia
had been a colony in the late Nineteen (19) century, a difference of
nearly four hundreds (400) years. Whereas Indonesia fought and won
her independence from Holland in 1945, West Papua was forced to
integrate into the Republic of Indonesia in 1969, a difference of 25
years between the independence and the purported integration.
2.5 That West Papua as a State and a People are geographically
isolated by 'blue-water' from the rest of Indonesia, thus fulfilling
the first prerequisite for self-determination under Resolution 1541
of the General Assembly.
2.6 That West Papua as a State and a People are ethnically and
culturally different from Indonesia and Indonesians. Whereas,
Indonesians are the main of the Asian Mongoloid race, West Papuans
are Melanesians, ethnically and culturally the same as other
Melanesians in Papua New Guinea, Solomon Island, Vanuatu, Kanaky and
Fiji. This also fulfils the second prerequisite for self-
determination under Resolution 1541.
2.7 That since integration in 1962 (formally in 1969), the
Melanesians of West Papua as a State and a People have been
continuously oppressed and discriminated against by the state of
Indonesia, socially, culturally, politically and economically. The
exodus of thousands of West Papuan Melanesian into Papua New Guinea
and around the world as refugees since 1963 attest to the
discrimination and oppression they faced as a people under Indonesian
rule. This, thus fulfils the third and final prerequisite for self-
determination as provided under Resolution 1541 of the United Nations
General Assembly.
2.8 That in any event, the right to self-determination is a right not
just a colonised people but increasingly a right that is being
demanded and equally recognised by International Law, including the
United Nations, as a right that is belonging to non-colonial
situation or post-colonial situation as is the case of West Papua. In
this respect, International Law, including the United Nations
has allowed and recognise the exercise of the right by such people
and states in post colonial situation to either external self-
determination (that is by secession) or internal self-determination
(within existing state).
2.9 That the right to self-determination is not a once and for all
right belonging to colonised people and state but is an evolving
right equally belonging to states and peoples as is the case for West
Papuans. This is apparent by the fact that the language of all the
International Covenants and Resolutions of the United Nations General
Assembly relating to the right to self-determination refers to "all
people have (Present Tense). The Right to Self-Determination of West
Papua as a State and a People must also be accorded that right
despite the purported integration into the Republic of Indonesia in
1969.
2.10 That any event, the right to self-determination is recognised by
International Law and human right and not simply as a political right
linked to decolonisation. Hence the criteria for exercising such a
right should not be limited to classical colonial situation but
increasingly to situation where a people as a state demarcated by
culture, ethnically and geographically are subjected to various other
human rights violations in post colonial situations as is the case of
West Papuans under Indonesian rule.
2.11 That the United Nation Decolonisation Committee should take hint
from the expression of the General Assembly in its declaration of
1993 as the International Year for indigenous peoples' right and
recognised that such peoples and states are and should be the new
subjects or beneficiaries of the right to self-determination.
West Papua as a State and a People who are ethnically, culturally,
geographically different from Indonesia and who have for thirty (30)
years been oppressed and discriminated by the State of Indonesia must
be considered as such a beneficiary of this right.
3. WEST PAPUAN CLAIM UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
It is submitted that West Papua as a State and a People does have a
right to self-determination. That such a right has not been
exercised, despite the so called 1969 'Act of Free Choice' (AFC). In
any event that West Papua/ns should be accorded the right to self-
determination in international law as a geographically, culturally
and ethnically separated State and People who have been oppressed and
discriminated in the post colonial of Republic of Indonesia as (re)
colonised people or indigenous people.
West Papua's claim as a State and a people entitle to exercise the
right to self-determination find strong support and legitimacy in
international law. There should be no dispute that West Papua either
as a State or People did qualify as subjects or beneficiaries of the
rights to self-determination in international law. This is apparent
by the fact that West Papua or West New Guinea as it was then was
initially listed on the United Nations List on 'non-self-governing
territories' before 1969. In any Event the state and people of West
Papua does fulfil the requirements of the rights in International
Law, particularly resolution 1541 of the United Nations General
Assembly, in that they were geographically, ethnically, and
culturally different from their colonial administrator - the
Netherlands. The issue for West Papuans now is whether the right has
been exercised in 1969 as a result of the so called "AFC" and hence
cannot be accorded again. In other words does the 1969 "AFC" defeats
any future claims of West Papua as a State or a People to be entitled
to that right or exercise it again if indeed they have exercised such
a right as in 1969.
It is submitted that despite the 1969 so called "AFC" and contrary to
any claims by the Republic of Indonesia and the opinion of the United
Nations and specifically the Decolonisation Committee of the United
Nations, West Papuans as a State and as a people have never lawfully
and freely exercised their rights to self-determination under
international law. The 1969 so called AFC therefore should not
defeat the rights of West Papua and West Papuans to the right to self-
determination on the following basis:
(1) That the 1969 AFC was not conducted in accordance with
International Law in that it was not freely and fairly conducted and
exercised.
(2) That the 1969 AFC had no legal basis in international law in that
it was a mechanism that was agreed to by parties other than the West
Papuans who were the subject of the agreement and hence wrong in law,
including international law. Secondly that in any event the
Agreement, upon which the exercise was conducted had already lapsed
in law and thus negates the subsequent AFC conducted in 1969.
4. THE 1969 "ACT OF FREE CHOICE (AFC)"
The 1969 so-called AFC is tragedy that is and continues to be the
history of West Papua and her people. This exercise which is being
claimed by Indonesia and regrettably the United Nations as an
exercise in self-determination by the West Papuan, involved the West
Papuan Voting in a referendum to decide whether or not to be granted
independence as a separate state or to be integrated into the
republic of Indonesia. When the referendum was actually conducted in
1969, only 1025 hand-picked members of the specifically appointed
referendum' council were allowed to vote. This act which took place
aimed widespread political unrest and armed resistance was formally
acknowledged by the UN General Assembly and the West Papuan
henceforth cease to occupy the attention of the world
community. This is despite the fact that the manner in which the so-
called referendum was clearly violated the Declaration of the United
Nations' own General Assembly.
Nearly a decade earlier in 1969, before the so-called AFC, the
General Assembly had adopted a Declaration on granting of
independence to colonial countries and peoples. The declaration
upheld "the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of the
peoples." This declaration which was adopted as Resolution 1514 of
the xvth Session of the General Assembly was manifestly
violated by what happened in West Papua in August, 1969. Principle
ix of Resolution 1514 (xv) defined the conditions under which
integration which other countries should take place:
"(a) The integrating territory should have attained advanced stage of
self-government with free political institutions, so that its people
would have the capacity to make a reasonable choice through informed
and democratic processes. (b) The integration should be the result of
freely expressed wishes of the territory's peoples acting on full
knowledge of the change in their status, their wishes having been
expressed through informed and democratic process impartially
conducted and based on universal suffrage. The United Nations could,
when deemed necessary, supervise these processes."
These principles were profoundly breached by what happened in West
Papua from the moment Indonesia took over the country's
administration. The adequate preparation of the people and their
institutions and the manner in which the so-called AFC was conducted
should render the exercise and its subsequent outcome void in
international law as it clearly violates the principle of the United
Nations. In any event the exercise that was forced upon the West
Papuans without their consent and participation.
The 1969 'Act of Free Choice' was a result of the terms of the 'New
York Agreement' singed between the United States of America, the
Kingdom of Holland and Indonesia on the 15th of August, 1962. West
Papuans were never a party of the agreement nor they ever consulted
as to its terms and conditions. The role of the Untied States
of America is also questionable in International Law as she was
neither the Administering State of either Indonesia or West Papua.
Her role can therefore only be understood in political terms at the
time of the Agreement as it was at the beginning of the so-called
Cold War. It is obvious that West Papua as a State and a People was
one of the first victims of the Cold War between East and Western
Europe.
In any event in the 'New York Agreement' should be rendered invalid
in international law in that it was subsequently overridden by the
Rome Agreement signed on the 30th of September 1962, between the
United States of America, Indonesia and the Netherlands Governments.
Again, no West Papuan was involved in negotiating, drafting, and
signing of the Agreement. The Rome Agreement provided among other
things the following:
(1) Referendum or the Act of Free Choice set for 1969 in the New York
Agreement of 15 August 1962 to be delayed or if possible cancelled.
(2) Indonesia to rule West Papua for the next twenty-five (25) years
effective from the first of May 1963.
(3) Method to be used in implementation of the Act of Free Choice or
Referendum would be "musyawarah system" in accordance with the
Indonesian Parliamentary practice.
(4) UN's final report on the implementation of the Act of Free Choice
presented to the UN General Assembly be accepted without open debate.
(5) The United States of America be responsible to make investment
through Indonesian State Companies for the Exploration of minerals,
petroleum and other resources of West Papua.
(6) The USA guarantees the Asian Development Bank US $30 Million to
be granted to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) to
develop West Papua for a period of twenty-five (25) years.
(7) The USA to guarantee the World Bank funds for Indonesia to plan
and implement its transmigration program where Indonesians were
resettled in West Papua starting from 1977.
The so-called Act of Free Choice was not only violation of the United
Nations' rules and principles on decolonisation. It was also an act
which had no legal basis in INTERNATIONAL Law. It is therefore best
described as an ACT OF NO CHOICE. Indonesians claim to West Papua
should thus be held by International Law to be void and of no legal
effect. For this reason the United Nations and International
Community should revise its recognition of West Papua as part of the
Republic of Indonesia and reinstate West Papua on the list of Non-
Self-Governing Territories.
5. RIGHT OF WEST PAPUA AS A RECOLONISED STATE
The right of West Papua as a State and as a People also find support
in international law as s recolonised people under he same principles
of international law. Such a practice is not unprecedented in
international law and practice. Recently Bangladesh and Eritrea are
beneficiaries of such international law and practice. This right it
is submitted is accorded when the post colonial state discriminate
and oppresses as specific group of people and the People of West
Papua it is submitted qualifies under such criteria for
decolonisation in post-colonial era.
The fact is that demands to self-determination in a non-colonial
situation or postcolonial situation are growing both in quantity and
intensity. This is equally true of external self-determination
(within existing state). The secession of Bangladesh from (West
Pakistan) illustrates the possibility of self-determination in a post-
colonial situation.
Secession from an existing State either to constitute an independent
state or to join an existing State is already recognised as one of
the means of exercising self-determination and in which self-
determination has been allowed to be exercised. This is provided for
in the 1970 UN declaration on Principles of International Law
Concerning Friendly Relations among States of the United Nations.
It is acknowledged that the 1970 Declaration of Friendly Relations
both the rights of State to Territorial integrity and the rights of
people's self-determination by secession. The Right to Self-
Determination in a postcolonial therefore is Consequential Right
rather than an absolute right under the 1970 Declaration of Friendly
Relations. The right to self-determination by secession, it is
submitted that becomes a right consequential to the
postcolonial State becoming oppressive and discriminatory to a
specific people within the given state. This was indeed the case of
Bangladesh when the International Community and the International Law
ignored the Right of Pakistan to territorial integrity thus
recognising and granting Bangladesh her independence. It is submitted
that the same or similar situation exist for West Papua as a state
and as a people.
Yours Excellency, Since the Indonesia took over administrative
control of West Papua on the first of May 1963 to the present, West
Papuan have been subjected to various act of intimidation, violence
and other oppressive act by the Indonesian government, specifically
by its Armed Forces which to this day control West Papua. The
recorded and unrecorded acts of brutality, discrimination and
oppression are numerous and have been well documented by the
International Human Rights Organisations such as Amnesty
International, Asia Watch, TAPOL and others.
Some of the examples of the brutality which Melanesians of West Papua
have been subjected to since Indonesian take over is given (see pages
6-7 above).
The presence of hundreds of thousands of West Papuan refugees
particularly in Papuan New Guinea but generally also in the world
attest to the brutal oppressive and discriminatory rule of Indonesian
in West Papua.
In this era of International Decade of Eradication of Colonialism and
the International Year of the Indigenous, the People's Right we
submit to the committee the following:
(1) That the United Nations General Assembly through the good office
of the chairman of this office and the good office of the Secretary-
General of the United Nations to reconsider its decision in respect
of the 1969 Act of Free Choice with a view to reject its legality and
result.
(2) That the United Nations Decolonisation Committee reinstate the
case of West Papua as a non-self-governing territory. Territory
entitled to exercise the right to self-determination.
(3) That the Chairman of the committee uses its good office to begin
a process for West Papuans to legitimately and legally exercise the
Right to Self-Determination.
(4) That the Chairman and the Member Committees of the Decolonisation
Committee liase with Netherlands as the Administrative Power and the
Indonesian as the occupying power to begin such a process of
decolonisation.
Thank you
MELANESIAN SOLIDARITY.
retyped as original by S. Karoba, BWS (3 May 2001)
Book 04
Book 06
---
FREE WEST PAPUA CAMPAIGN
www.freewestpapua.org <http://www.freewestpapua.org/>
P.O. Box 656, Oxford, OX3 3AP England, U.K. Tel: +44(0)7766 875009
office@freewestpapua.org
NEWS RELEASE
West Papuan Independence leader
returns to "Dutch Father"
to remember 1962 "Day of Tears"
28th September 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
"I am crying day and night because of the suffering of my People"
says BENNY WENDA, former political prisoner and leader of the West Papuan
independence movement in the UK. "Now I must return to our Dutch Father,
because we need his help for my People to survive!"
Monday 1st October will be a milestone along West Papua's bloody road from
Dutch colony to Indonesian killing field --- 45 years to the day since the
last Dutch
colonial administrators and servicemen left West Papua, to be replaced a few
months
later by the brutal Indonesian military. Since then, the Indonesian
occupying forces have
killed an estimated 100,000 indigenous West Papuans and tortured, raped and
imprisoned
countless others.
1st October 1962 is known to West Papuans as the "DAY OF TEARS". On that
day,
134 years of Netherlands New Guinea came to a sad end. "Our People were in
tears
when they saw the Dutch ships and aeroplanes leave" says Benny Wenda
"because we knew the Indonesians would come soon to take over our Land.
And our Dutch friends were crying also, because they didn't want to leave
us.
They wanted us to run our own Country --- West Papua."
Imprisoned by Indonesia for 25 years in 2002 for peacefully raising the
banned West Papuan
flag, Benny Wenda escaped from prison after a failed assassination attempt
and is now
leading the political movement for West Papuan independence from exile in
Oxford, UK.
"On the Day of Tears this year I need to return to our Dutch Father.
Together with all my West Papuan Sisters and Brothers who have been given
safety by the Dutch we want to ask for help from the Netherlands Government
and the Dutch People" says Benny Wenda. "We Papuans will be crying because
our
People are being killed and the World is doing nothing to stop it. We hope
some
Dutch people will be crying with us."
On Monday 1st October, Benny Wenda will be joining the Netherlands West
Papuan community and Dutch military veterans for a demonstration in the
Hague starting at 1.00pm (13.00) at Malieveld.
Benny Wenda will also hold a Press Conference at the Concordia Theatre, The
Hague, (Theater Concordia - Hoge Zand 42 - 2512 EM - Den Haag) at 10.00 am.
Editors' Note: West Papua is the Western half of the island of New Guinea,
about 250 miles
north of Australia. Following a failed invasion by the Indonesian military
in 1962 during which
Dutch and West Papuan servicemen fought side by side, the Netherlands was
forced to
hand over its colony to Indonesia under severe pressure from the US Kennedy
administration.
Known to the Indonesians as "Irian Jaya", West Papua has been occupied by
Indonesia
since 1st May 1963. Indonesia formally annexed West Papua following a sham
"referendum"
in 1969 known as the "Act of Free Choice" in which 1,026 hand-picked West
Papuans
(out of a then population of 800,000) were forced at gun-point to vote for
Indonesian rule.
Since 1963, an estimated 100,000 West Papuan men, women & children have been
killed
by the occupying Indonesian armed forces. The killing, torturing and
imprisonment of peaceful
independence campaigners continues to this day.
For more information & interviews contact
Richard Samuelson
Co-Director, Free West Papua Campaign, Oxford, UK
Telephone: +44(0)7891 235112
Email: samoxen@dsl.pipex.com
Websites: www.freewestpapua.org <http://www.freewestpapua.org/> &
www.infopapua.org <http://www.infopapua.org/>
QUOTATIONS:
"Look to the future with confidence in the justice of your case, knowing
that you will always be in our minds and our best wishes will accompany you
. and may God save you."
Dutch Prime Minister Dr J.E. de Quay in his farewell radio broadcast to the
people of West Papua, 15 August 1962.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
"Finally, we can look the Papuans in the eyes."
Dutch MP Eimert van Middelkoop, in his proposal to Parliament that the
Netherlands Government should commission a review of the 1969 Act of NO
Choice, 10 December 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
"In the opinion of the Western observers and the Papuans who have spoken out
about this, the Act of Free Choice ended up as a sham, where a press-ganged
electorate acting under a great deal of pressure appeared to have
unanimously declared itself in favour of Indonesia.
In The Hague, Minister Luns, still active as the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, took the view that the Netherlands did acknowledge a moral
responsibility, but did not, according to the text of the agreement, have
the scope to take action itself. Dutch action remained limited to being
understanding about the Indonesian behaviour without publicly endorsing
this.
Those who have become engrossed in the impossible position that the Papuans
have found themselves in over the course of this history, can only hope,
with the author, that their fate will take a turn for the better in the new
century. The factors on which such a fate can be based can be found in the
above. They lie in the possibilities of Papuan society itself, which has
produced the necessary self-control, wisdom and resilience to ensure its
survival. They also lie in the interest shown by the international
community, which has interfered with the course of events in all kinds of
ways and, in doing so, has often been the primary driving force behind
change. This was most clearly expressed in the processes that led to the
conclusion of the Agreement of New York and the regulations based on this.
For those who are able to bear it, historical responsibility should also
have significance under international law."
Professor P. J. Drooglever, in his summary of "Act of Free Choice: The
Papuans of Western New Guinea and the limitations of the right to self
determination" 15 November 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
"I return to the Act of Free Choice. Although we recognise that it was
extremely flawed, the UK has no plans to support a review of that Act.
We believe that is a matter for the Netherlands and the UN.
As the 1962 New York agreement was between the Dutch and Indonesian
Governments, and the UN oversaw the 1969 Act, we have little locus to
question the legality of either."
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: [UK Government spokesperson], House of Lords
debate on West Papua, 8 January 2007
---
============================================================================
KABAR IRIAN ("Irian/Papua News since 1994") www.kabar-irian.info -
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. "