[Kabar-Irian] Irian News - 4/17/06 (Part 3 of 3)

[Admin]

The Australian
April 15, 2006
Opinion
The Trouble with Territory's Future
-- Damien Kingsbury outlines the choices ahead for Indonesia's Papua

The diplomatic row between Australia and Indonesia has highlighted the
increasingly critical situation in the already troubled territory of
Papua.
As
events develop, the future of Papua looks less clear than at any time
since Indonesia moved into the former Dutch territory in 1963.

The options range from worsening discord and conflict to the prospect of
independence. But for those Papuans who favour independence, Indonesia's
nationalists, spearheaded by the Indonesian military, the TNI, are 
profoundly opposed to Papua's separation from Indonesia and will destroy
the place rather than let it go.

Should this situation arise, the Indonesian Government would have almost
no capacity, and probably little desire, to limit the TNI's actions.
Beyond Papua in Indonesia, there is only opposition to its independence.

The problem with the independence proposition is that even though there is
little likelihood it can be achieved, it suits the TNI to raise this 
prospect to entrench its own position in Papua and, as guarantor of state
cohesion, in Indonesian politics.

No matter which way events turn, the situation in Papua is not
sustainable. Indonesia's President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono recognises
this and wants a negotiated resolution. However, he has so far said this
should occur within the context of existing legislation for Papua.
According to most Papuan groups, this is too limited to produce an
adequate outcome.

Similarly, there is growing international interest in and increasing
pressure for a resolution in Papua, not least from the US Congress and
some parts of the US administration. Australia also wants to see a
resolution in Papua, in large part to limit it as the focus of continuing
bilateral discord.

The US Congress has applied some pressure over Papua's status and could
push for a negotiated settlement. But the US administration is generally
keen to retain and indeed boost Indonesia as a regional ally.

Short of overwhelming public pressure, as with East Timor, Australia is
reduced to the diplomatic equivalent of hand-wringing, and this is more
over its relationship with Jakarta than reflecting any great concern for
the people of Papua.

The question, then, is whether a negotiated settlement can be charted
between the competing claims of Papuan calls for independence, the
backlash this would entail and the deteriorating status quo. A negotiated
settlement, if it moved beyond rhetoric, would require three criteria.
These can be summarised as intention, capacity and opportunity.

Both the Indonesian Government and a representative Papuan organisation
must first want a negotiated solution. Yudhoyono does, if within an
impossibly limited framework. Key Papuan leaders have also said they seek
what they call a just peace through dialogue. The primary intention,
therefore, appears to be there.

In terms of capacity, there has been a coalescing of Papua's political
organisations around a common vision for the future, as well as a desire
for a negotiated settlement to that end. In support of his legislative
program, Yudhoyono, meanwhile, has so far been able to muster a small but
definite majority in Indonesia's legislature, the People's Representative
Council or DPR.

However, in Indonesia's sometimes factious political environment,
Yudhoyono must also be able to command substantial institutional support
to ensure that any agreement reached is respected. It would be easy for
the Indonesian army or its proxy militias in Papua - Laskar Jihad and
Laskar Tabligh - to wreck any such agreement. The militias have opposed
Papuan activists in the past and there have been recent reports of militia
involvement in drive-by shootings.

Among Papuans, too, there has been a capacity to divide, although many
Papuans note that their lack of a united leadership is primarily a
consequence of their leaders being murdered or forced into exile.
Divisions in Papuan society, however, have been overstated in Jakarta and
there is now a commitment to the idea of a representative team rather than
the idea of a single leader.

A negotiated settlement also requires opportunity. The Aceh peace
agreement was initiated before the 2004 tsunami, but there is no doubt
that event helped push negotiations to a successful conclusion. The other
main factor was international support, and pressure on both parties.

Papua does not have the tsunami incentive, but there is an increasing
sense of urgency about its status. And, as with Aceh, any settlement in
Papua will also require support, not least on the part of a willing
mediator and the backing of a key international power such as the US or
European Union to act as a guarantor for any agreement.

Indonesia would prefer to negotiate an outcome internally, but any
possible internal agreement would probably be subverted, as it was with
Papua's original special autonomy package.

There is virtually no one in Papua who wants a negotiated settlement who
would trust the Indonesian Government without international mediation and
related guarantees. There are, however, two impediments to the possibility
of a negotiated settlement. The first and main impediment is that
Indonesia's DPR has not yet passed the enabling legislation from the Aceh
peace agreement. Further, and despite international guarantees, the
legislation that is being considered falls short of that which was agreed
to.

Despite differences between Aceh and Papua, the Aceh peace agreement will
act as a precedent to any possible negotiated settlement for Papua. If it
fails, then the chances of a negotiated settlement in Papua would appear
slim. If the Aceh legislation is passed, but in diluted form, or subverted
in practice, this too will undermine a possible Papua settlement.

At this stage, however, it appears that the Aceh peace agreement will
hold. A recent meeting of senior Free Aceh Movement (GAM) leaders and
other Acehnese politicians in Stockholm reaffirmed them as committed to a
path of peace through democracy.

To that end, the Aceh peace legislation will probably be passed in the
next few weeks, and its expected shortcomings will be referred to its
international guarantors, the Crisis Management Initiative and the EU, for
mediation. At that point, prospects for a follow-up settlement for Papua
may start to look more reasonable, if not promising.

A lesser, although still critical, problem also lies with the
international community. The EU backed the Aceh peace agreement because it
came hot on the heels of its commitment with others to rebuilding Aceh
after the tsunami.

Support for the Aceh agreement was also the first outing for the EU as a
global player in conflict resolution. The relative success of the EU's
Aceh monitoring mission has given it confidence. However, a further effort
may stretch Indonesia's willingness to provide the necessary endorsement
that such missions require. And it may stretch the limited enthusiasm of
the EU's member-states, which have provided less, rather than more, to
Aceh than was originally asked of them. There are many in the US Congress
who would also like to assist in resolving the Papua problem, but they are
unlikely to receive great support from the administration, perhaps beyond
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Apart from the US's significant and
sensitive investments in Papua, such as the contentious Freeport copper
and gold mine, the US administration sees its renewed ties to the TNI as
part of its principal focus of the war on terror.

Not only will the US administration be reluctant to jeopardise this
warming security relationship, any military-based monitoring capacity is
also limited by the US being stretched to its financial and logistic
limits in Iraq. There is, then, little will, much less capacity, for even
a moderate military-based guarantee in Papua.

Where there may be some scope, however, is for a US or joint US-EU
civilian-based monitoring exercise through their respective official aid
agencies. A military response to violations appears highly unlikely, but
clear economic sanctions could work.

Indonesia remains highly vulnerable to pressure on foreign investment and
continuing multilateral aid through the World Bank and International
Monetary Fund. It was, after all, this latter type of pressure that
persuaded the Indonesian government to allow an Australian-led UN
sanctioned force into East Timor in 1999.

It appears, then, that a negotiated resolution to the Papua problem is
available, if still having to overcome serious hurdles. Like any such
resolution, it will not be easy and will be prone to competing pressures.

The intention to work towards a resolution exists on the Papuan side and
probably exists on the part of Yudhoyono. It also appears that each have
the capacity to negotiate, if still dealing with some fractious elements.
The question is, will the international community help provide Papua, and
Indonesia, with the opportunity?
-- Damien Kingsbury is director of international and community development
at Victoria's Deakin University and was adviser to the Free Aceh Movement
in the 2005 Helsinki peace talks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bloomberg.com
Yudhoyono Says Indonesia May `Review' Relations With Australia
Last Updated: April 17, 2006 00:59 EDT

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said he may “review'' the
nation's relations with Australia after asylum seekers from the Southeast
Asian nation's Papua province were granted visas in Australia.

“Our stance is very clear that we have to review our cooperation and
relations with Australia until we clearly have fair ground,'' Yudhoyono
told reporters in Jakarta today. “Australia and other countries have said
they are in full support of Indonesia's sovereignty and integrity but what
we want is the implementation of what they have said.''

Relations between the neighbors have worsened after Australia granted
three-year visas to 43 Papuan asylum seekers, prompting Indonesia to
withdraw its envoy to the country and delay signing an agreement to
receive A$10 million ($7.3 million) in aid for bird flu. Yudhoyono's
comments today show that Indonesia is not satisfied after Australia said
April 13 it will send all asylum seekers arriving by boat to island
detention centers to assess their claims.

“We have to be very firm about the Papua asylum case,'' Yudhoyono said.
Indonesia will need to review cooperation on illegal migration “so that it
is good for Indonesia, good for Australia and good for the world.''

Australia granted the Papuans visas last month based on their claim that
the Indonesian government was committing genocide in Papua province.
Indonesia denies the claim and described the asylum seekers as economic
migrants.

Papuan rebels have been fighting for a separate state since the Dutch
colonial power ceded control to Indonesia in 1963. The province's name was
changed from Irian Jaya under a regional autonomy law in 2000 to reduce
the central government's hold on outlying provinces and quell unrest.

Australia will send all asylum seekers arriving by boat to island
detention centers where claims for refugee status will be assessed,
Immigration Minister Amanda Vanstone said.

“The new measures emphasize the government's strong commitment to
effective border control while ensuring we continue to meet our
international obligations,'' Vanstone said in a statement released in
Canberra on April 13.
-- To contact the reporters on this story: Wahyudi Soeriaatmadja in
Jakarta at  wahyudi at bloomberg.net.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Australian
Opinion
Tony Kevin: Backdown invites more demands
-- The more Canberra caves in to Jakarta's demands, the more we invite danger
April 18, 2006

There are profound ironies in the evolution of Australian policy on
asylum-seekers. We have moved from John Howard's heady nationalism of 2001
to abject appeasement of the Indonesian Government.

As a former career diplomat for 30 years, I have in the past drawn
attention to the need to respect Indonesian national sovereignty and the
sensitivities that properly go with it. (During the bitter standoff
between the Howard and Wahid governments in late 2000, for instance, I
even called on our leaders to apologise to Jakarta for Australia's
diplomatic blunders in the lead-up to East Timor's independence in 1999).

Yet, having said this, I am convinced the Government's policies in respect
of Papuan asylum-seekers arriving in Australia by boat are not only
unethical and internationally illegal, but also dangerous from an
Australian national security viewpoint.

Last Thursday, the Government announced that boat people would be
mandatorily removed to offshore processing centres in Nauru, Manus or
Christmas Island and that, even for those who are judged to be genuine
refugees under the UN Convention, they will all or mostly never be
accepted to live in Australia.

But these policies send a wrong message not only to a fairly benign
Indonesian Government but also to darker, extreme nationalist elements.
The message is that an Australian government can be threatened - indeed
blackmailed - into abandoning essential values and interests.

In recent weeks, Indonesian ministers have perceived and exploited
Australian policy irresolution. The Immigration Department's decision to
award only temporary rather than permanent protection visas led
Indonesia's Foreign Minister Hassan Wirayuda to warn on March 24 that
Indonesia had worked closely with Australia on issues of illegal
immigrants in the past three years. Those problems, he implied, could
return. Within days, Defence Minister Brendan Nelson was offering possible
joint patrols with the Indonesian Navy to intercept boatpeople south of
Papua. Stepping up Australian surveillance in these waters begged the
question of what to do with intercepted Papuans. On April 3, Indonesian
President Yudhoyono emphasised Wirayuda's warning, saying "Indonesia would
review co-operation with Australia aimed at curbing people smugglers who
use Indonesia as a stopover point to Australia's north".

Last Thursday Howard caved in, announcing a clearly punitive policy of
deterrence. Any boatpeople claiming refugee status would be sent to
offshore processing (read detention) centres and in all probability would
never be allowed to settle in Australia.

Howard may have hoped this would satisfy the Indonesians. Their main
concern - to avoid build-up in Australia of a politically active Papuan
refugee community, as had happened with the East Timorese - might appear
to have been met. But the policy won't work. Yesterday, despite Canberra's
attempts to placate Jakarta, Yudhoyono complained that Australia still
showed insufficient respect for Indonesia's territorial integrity and that
our Government should never have issued temporary protection visas to the
Papuans.

The moral of the story: appeasement only generates further demands.
Instead, Canberra should tell Jakarta: "You have a problem in Papua
because you are not sufficiently respecting the rights of the people there
to civil liberties and a fair share of their natural resources. Until you
redress these wrongs, you will continue to have insurgency and refugee
problems. If refugees seek protection here, we have no alternative but to
consider their claims fairly and without political interference."
-- Tony Kevin was a senior Australian diplomat from 1968 to 1998.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian News Network
Don't insult us, says Jakarta
From:  By Stephen Fitzpatrick and Cath Hart
April 18, 2006

Australia's new hardline refugee policy has failed to quell Indonesian
anger, with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono demanding yesterday further
concessions from the Howard Government to resolve the escalating Papuan
visa row.

In his first public comments since John Howard moved last week to redraw
the migration exclusion zone to force illegal arrivals who reach the
mainland into offshore immigration detention centres, Dr Yudhoyono
declared Australia's rhetoric needed to be backed by "concrete proof" that
it supported his country's territorial integrity.

Speaking at the opening of an annual forum on national development, Dr
Yudhoyono departed from his prepared script to launch an attack on what he
described as Australia's duplicitous attitude to his Government.

He said Indonesia wanted to continue "contributing to the world order",
but immediately warned Australia: "Don't insult us, don't toy with us and
don't deny us justice."

He repeated his call for a review of Jakarta-Canberra ties, saying
Australia's claim of support for Indonesian sovereignty over Papua was at
odds with its granting of three-year temporary protection visas to 42
asylum-seekers who arrived on Cape York in a large outrigger canoe in
mid-January.

"How can it be possible to send such a confusing signal - granting asylum
when there are pro-Papuan independence movements in Australia, and yet
saying 'We support Indonesian sovereignty'?" he said.

Dr Yudhoyono received warm applause for his speech, during which he also
warned: "Our position is clear: we must re-examine our co-operation and
bilateral relationships with Australia so that they are genuinely fair."

Indications that Australia's drastic move last week has failed to resolve
the diplomatic impasse, which has seen relations with Indonesia sink to
their lowest level since the East Timor crisis in 1999, came as it was
revealed Australia would send its top diplomat to Jakarta to attempt to
calm a situation described by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer as "a
crisis".

Michael L'Estrange, secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade, will meet Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda on Friday to
explain the new refugee policy and Australia's decision to award the group
of Papuan independence activists protection visas.

Indonesian ambassador to Australia Hamzah Thayeb, who was recalled by
Jakarta last month in response to the granting of the visas, expressed
frustration yesterday at not being returned to his post.

Mr Thayeb said he was keeping busy in Jakarta during his recall period but
was not expecting to meet the Australian envoy. "I haven't been asked to
meet him, no," he said.

The ambassador is working out of a borrowed office in the Foreign Affairs
Ministry.

"I'm at the department every day. I'm consulting with my colleagues," he
said. "That's just the normal process, so that everything works out well.
But of course I want to return (to Canberra). My work is there."

Former Australian diplomat Tony Kevin described Canberra's policy as
"unethical, illegal and dangerous" and the result of having "caved in to
Indonesian blackmail".

Writing in The Australian today, Mr Kevin warns that Australia's policy of
"appeasement" would lead only to further demands from Jakarta.

"These policies send a wrong message, not just to the present fairly
benign Indonesian Government, but also to darker extreme nationalist
elements," he writes.

"The message: That an Australian government can be threatened - even
blackmailed - into abandoning essential values and interests. That is not
a good message to send to any neighbour."

Details of Mr L'Estrange's visit to Jakarta remained secret yesterday, but
the Prime Minister foreshadowed on Thursday that a high-level visit was
likely, saying that although he and Dr Yudhoyono had not spoken directly,
they "probably will".

"When you've got a difficulty in a relationship what you've got to do is
work at it in a systematic and a diplomatic fashion - and of course these
foreign ministers are far suaver and better at handling these things than
we rough-and-ready heads of government," Mr Howard said.

A member of Indonesia's foreign affairs and defence committee, which has
demanded that the 42 Papuans have their visas revoked, praised Canberra
yesterday for acknowledging Indonesian anger over the affair.

"This happened not because of pressure from the Indonesian Government, but
because (the Australian Government) saw the anger of the Indonesian
people," parliamentarian A.S.Hikam said. He added that it was "a very
smart strategy from the Howard Government".

But the refugee policy has sparked allegations that the Government made
the policy change to kowtow to Jakarta.

Queensland Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce said he believed the majority
of Australians would not support policies of appeasement.

"I think he (Mr Howard) is smart enough to realise that a large number of
Australians are not going to accept appeasing Jakarta," Senator Joyce
said.

"The vast majority of people would not like to think we're changing our
immigration policy to placate Jakarta.

"There's nothing more nauseating than some economist using economic reason
to say why we should be appeasing Jakarta's desire to persecute West
Papuans.

"I would like to think our Government is run from Canberra, not from
Jakarta, and I don't think there's any reason to suggest that has been
changed at this stage.

"If we'd sent those 42 back, I would have had some serious doubts," he
said, "because I strongly believe they would have been persecuted and some
of them would have been killed if they'd gone back."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Australian
Editorial
Wrong on refugees
15apr06
-- Australia should decide who we accept, not Jakarta

FIVE years ago, John Howard had a serious refugee crisis on his hands.
Thousands of asylum-seekers, many travelling on rickety and unseaworthy
boats, were landing at Christmas Island. More than 1100 made landfall in
August 2001 alone, with countless others never completing the trip because
of the greed and negligence of people-smugglers. Thus, when later that
year – in the wake of the Tampa, children overboard, and 9/11 – the Prime
Minister made his famous comment, "We will decide who comes to this
country, and the circumstances under which they come," he was criticised
for making a subtle link between terrorists and refugees, most of whom
came from Iraq and Afghanistan, in an attempt to win back One Nation
voters. But he was also establishing a moral cloak for the Pacific
Solution, namely fighting people-smugglers and discouraging asylum-seekers
by processing them offshore. Fast forward to 2006, and Mr Howard has
another refugee problem on his hands. But this one involves a few dozen,
rather than thousands of, individuals – namely, the 42 Papuan independence
activists turned asylum-seekers granted temporary protection visas this
month by the Immigration Department, much to the consternation of the
Indonesian Government. In response, Mr Howard has rewritten policy – not
to save lives but, apparently, to appease Jakarta. Under new regulations,
even refugees who reach mainland Australia, not just excised islands, can
be sent to offshore locations for processing. Expensive hi-tech
submarines, warships, radar installations and spy planes will be deployed
on 24-hour watch to detect and discourage future asylum-seekers. The
Government even opened the door to consulting Jakarta on future cases of
Papuan asylum-seekers. And before telling the Australian people of the new
rules, Mr Howard told Jakarta, sending a special envoy from Canberra to
deliver the news. It all recalls Paul Keating's secret 1995 security deal
with Suharto, and threatens to drive the progressive Left and One Nation
Right together. The Australian has always agreed with the Howard
Government's position on the mandatory detention and processing of
unauthorised arrivals, although we have strongly opposed the inhumane
Pacific Solution and the continuing detention of children behind razor
wire. It is curious that after a general recent softening towards
refugees, the federal Government has once again adopted such a hardline
approach. Mr Howard says he is eager to halt any further decline in
Australian-Indonesian relations, which is understandable. But many
Australians have become concerned that the price of Jakarta's friendship
is becoming too high. This is not, after all, the 1960s, when Australia
feared an Indonesian invasion. Today, Indonesia has more at risk from poor
relations with Australia than vice versa. Australia gave Indonesia $1
billion at a stroke after the Boxing Day tsunami, with hundreds of
millions more in aid scheduled in coming years. Australia also commits
vast resources to helping Indonesia fight terrorism, another strong
argument in favour of maintaining both Indonesia's territorial integrity
and good relations with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who has proved
a strong ally on this front. But Indonesia is still only Australia's
11th-largest trading partner, worth a comparatively scant $8.5 billion in
two-way trade each year. This figure is dwarfed by our relationships with
nations such as China. For all its bluster, it is hard to see what serious
consequences Indonesia could impose on a nation that today can confidently
project power halfway around the world.

There are two relationships here that need repairing: that between Jakarta
and Papua, and that between Indonesia and Australia. Canberra can advise
Jakarta on its dealings with Papua, and may well wish for a thaw with
Indonesia, but cannot change domestic policy in pursuit of this goal. And
the Indonesian Government realistically understands that it will have to
properly implement some form of autonomy for Papua after a botched attempt
in 2001. As The Australian noted last week, a united Indonesia is in
everyone's best interests. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley accurately summed
things up when he said, "We have to tell the Indonesians that nothing has
happened here which sees us as a nation stand aside from what is a common
position between the Government and Opposition, in support of the
territorial integrity of Indonesia." Correct. But just as Indonesians
rightfully asked Australians to respect their law with regard to the
Schapelle Corby verdict, Indonesians must understand that Australia has
its own laws as well. And those laws may well see Papuans granted asylum.
The sooner Jakarta understands it cannot drive policy in Canberra, the
sooner the two nations can get relations back on the right track.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sydney Morning Herald
Editorial
Pacific gulag for Papuans
April 17, 2006

When is Australia not Australia? When Papuans want to land on it. The
Howard Government is planning yet another contortion of the immigration
laws and refugee treaties.

It's no longer enough to excise outlying islands and reefs from Australia,
now we must excise Australia from Australia. Any asylum seekers who lob
anywhere in Australia will be treated as outside Australia's migration
zone and put behind barbed wire, probably on the baking, mineral-stripped
plateau of Nauru, now too destitute to afford even a telephone service.

And all this to save Australia the embarrassment of embarrassing the
Indonesians. The Immigration Minister, Amanda Vanstone, makes it clear
this exercise in nastiness is to prevent future asylum seekers from Papua
using Australia as a "staging point of protest". That is, to prevent them
putting their case to any audience other than immigration officers
assessing their application. Senator Vanstone also seems to think there's
something wrong and suspect about Australia becoming a country of first
asylum. That's for countries a long way from Australia, she implies.
However, Australia's territory is a relatively easy canoe journey across
waters that have been traversed by local peoples for centuries, and,
moreover, in Papua there are widespread and continuing human rights
abuses, as well as a strong separatist cause. If more seek to follow the
43 who landed on Cape York in January - 42 have so far been assessed as
having well-founded fears of persecution if they return - it will be
because of the actions of Indonesian authorities in Papua.

Senator Vanstone also tries to convince us the "Pacific solution" provides
a quicker, more fair hearing of asylum claims. People with a "legitimate"
claim would find it easier to win an Australian protection visa because
the process is shorter offshore, she says. This is disingenuous: it's
shorter because asylum-seekers outside Australia's jurisdiction are denied
the appeals available inside the country. Claims are not always
immediately clear, and interviews are subjective. By removing reviews and
appeals, the Government seriously weakens our adherence to treaty
obligations to assess asylum claims thoroughly, as well as making harsh
confinement and isolation the first experience of our system.

At least the Government seems to have dropped its earlier notion of asking
the Indonesians what they think, and identifying applicants to them. But
it still plans joint patrols in the Torres Strait to head off further
arrivals. What will be the rules of engagement for our armed forces and
civilian agencies? If boatloads of people are turned back, or into the
custody of Indonesian authorities, what will happen to them?

The original "Pacific solution" may have helped police forces stop
people-smuggling but it also caused a lot of suffering and trauma. Most of
those shipped off to Nauru and Manus Island were eventually assessed to be
refugees. Australia was soon at war with two of the regimes involved, and
may yet go along with a war against the third. The policy's revival looks
even more dodgy and repugnant, and the Government deserves its excoriation
by church and legal figures. It should be dropped.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The New York Times
Saturday, April 15, 2006
Long Trip by Sea and Into a Political Maze for Papuans Seeking Independence
By Raymond Bonner

Somerville, Australia: From one of the most remote places on earth, Herman
Wanggai stepped into a 75-foot motorized outrigger last November and
pushed off for a calculated and clandestine journey.

Along with one of his twin 2-year-old sons and more than 30 other people,
he set off from the northern coast of Papua, the Indonesian province once
called Irian Jaya, on the island of New Guinea. After six weeks under a
blistering equatorial sun and with Pacific waves sloshing on board, they
made it thousands of miles to Merauke, on the southern shore. There, they
picked up his wife and other son and set out once again, in the dead of
night, with little food and no compass.

Four days later, on Jan. 13, the group hit a reef near Mapoon, on the
northwest coast of Cape York Peninsula, clambered ashore, and found that
they had miraculously reached their destination, Australia, where a new
drama began.

Several weeks later, Australia, acting with surprising speed, granted
Wanggai, 32, and all his passengers, save one, political asylum. The
decision set off a diplomatic firestorm that has brought the issue of
Papuan independence to international attention, which is just what Wanggai
and his wife, Ferra Kambu, wanted.

In response, Indonesia recalled its ambassador from Australia and
Indonesian politicians have called for trade sanctions.

For Indonesia, the issue could not be more serious. An archipelago
stretching thousands of miles, the country has already faced two
secessionist wars in recent years, in Aceh and East Timor. The latter
succeeded in breaking away.

Indonesian leaders do not want to repeat the episode with Papua, which
holds the biggest source of income for its government: the world's richest
gold reserve.

As conflicts on Papua have flared - four people were killed in protests
last month - more and more churches and human rights groups in Australia,
the United States and Europe have lined up behind the cause of Papuan
independence.

Though Australia does not support independence, the decision to grant
asylum meant that the authorities had concluded that the Papuans faced a
"well-founded fear of persecution" if they were returned to Indonesia.

In an effort to soothe relations with Indonesia, the government announced
Thursday that from now on Papuan refugees would be deported to places like
the desolate island of Nauru while their asylum claims were processed,
which can take several years.

The Indonesian government does not permit journalists to visit Papua
without special permission, which is rarely granted. Even diplomats are
closely watched when they visit the province, a European ambassador said
recently.

Without access to Papua, it is almost impossible to assess the human
rights situation. The Indonesian police and military deny that there are
any abuses; the Papuan refugees in Australia speak of systematic
persecution.

The U.S. government does not support independence, either. But in its
annual country-by-country human rights report, released last month, the
State Department cited incidents in which Indonesian soldiers had beaten,
tortured and killed suspected promoters of independence.

In one case, the report said, soldiers tortured a suspected secessionist
"by slashing his face and body with a knife and razor and then pouring
petrol over his head and setting his hair on fire."

The report also noted that the Indonesian government had made only
"limited progress in establishing accountability" for past human rights
abuses committed by the military and police.

It was because of persecution for their support of independence, Wanggai
said, that he had risked all and braved what his wife described as waves
"as high as mountains."

They also wanted to make a point, they said: that Papua, a wild,
mountainous and heavily forested land roughly the size of California and
rich in natural resources, does not rightfully belong to Indonesia.

Papua's population of about 2.5 million people is mostly Melanesian, and
many are Christian, converted after years of missionary work. Most
Indonesians are Javanese and Muslim.

"We are activists," said Wanggai, a one-time law student who has been
active in the independence movement for more than a decade. He has been
jailed twice, once for two years for flying the West Papuan independence
flag.

Kambu, 36, the daughter of a tribal chief, has a bachelor's degree in
sociology and has been part of the movement since her university days. She
described the independence cause as a "nonviolent struggle."

Most of the others who fled with the couple were university students
active in the independence movement.

West Papuans' claims for independence reach back half a century. After
World War II, the Dutch gave Indonesia its independence, but because of
its vast riches kept Papua.

In 1963, to appease Indonesia's left- leaning dictator Sukarno, who was
demanding that West Papua be made part of Indonesia, President John F.
Kennedy persuaded the Dutch to agree to a UN- sponsored plebiscite, which
was held in 1969.

The Papuan leaders voted to join Indonesia, but by nearly all accounts,
including those of people who do not support Papuan independence, the vote
was manipulated by the government in Jakarta.

Indonesia has made some concessions in recent years, agreeing to change
the name of the province from Irian Jaya to Papua, and to grant more
autonomy, including a greater share of the revenues from the province's
riches, like a huge copper and gold mine run by the American mining
company Freeport-McMoRan.

But little of the promised autonomy has been delivered. The central
government has done little to improve the lives of Papuans, and health
care and schooling remain rudimentary.

For President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who is highly regarded by the U.S.
and Australian governments for bringing stability to Indonesia, Papua is a
critical test.

On the one hand, he faces rising protests in Papua by an alienated and
increasingly organized independence movement that, as the Australian
asylum decision shows, is drawing greater international support.

On the other, he must satisfy strident nationalists at home, including
senior military commanders who are angry over a deal he made last year
with secessionists in Aceh Province that brought peace but gave the
Acehnese considerable autonomy.

The commanders, who hold great sway in Indonesia, will not give the
president much room to maneuver on the Papuan issue, and some even favor a
military solution, which they pursued for years in Aceh at the cost of
many lives.

The refugees in Wanggai's party said they had talked with their relatives
back in Papua and had been told that the Indonesian police had been
questioning the relatives to determine exactly who fled and why.

The "why" is clear to the refugees and those who support them, including
Peter Woods, the pastor of St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Somerville,
about 65 kilometers, or 40 miles, south of Melbourne, who was a missionary
in Papua from 1978 to 1983. "The Papuans are treated as slaves of the
Javanese," he said.

As the refugees and other worshipers walked out of St. Andrew's, they
passed a bulletin board with a poster on it that read, "West Papua: An
Issue Whose Time Has Come."

That is precisely what the Papuan refugees here hope, and what the
Indonesian government fears.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sydney Morning Herald
Jakarta made me lie: refugee girl's mother
By Michael Gordon
April 18, 2006

Explosive claims surrounding a Papuan girl recently granted refugee status
in Australia are set to further strain relations between Canberra and
Jakarta, and test the Howard Government's harder-line border protection
policy.

The girl's mother, who is in hiding in Papua New Guinea, said she was
coerced by Indonesia into making a false appeal for the return of her
daughter to the eastern Indonesian province of Papua.

Anike Wanggai, 4, and her father were among 42 Papuans recently granted
refugee status. The mother, Siti Pandera Wanggai, claimed she was
pressured into appealing to Indonesia's President, Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono, to help secure the return of her daughter to Papua.

In a written statement, Mrs Wanggai claimed an Indonesian army
intelligence officer and two members of her family had forced her into
falsely claiming her daughter was taken without her permission and should
be returned.

"I was taken away by them and told to agree to the entire contents of the
statement that was made by the three of them," she said.

Mrs Wanggai said she feared for her safety if she was forced to return to
Papua from PNG. "Don't leave me here too long because I'm afraid," she
said yesterday by telephone.

Her initial statements seeking the return of her daughter were widely
reported in the Indonesian and Australian media, and seized upon by the
Indonesian Government. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Hassan Wirayuda,
asserted that, as signatories to a convention on child protection,
Australia and Indonesia were obliged to secure the girl's return. He also
warned that Indonesia could institute court proceedings. "It is the mother
who has the natural right to take care of her child," he said.

But David Manne, the lawyer representing the woman's husband and daughter,
said it was now clear there was involvement "at a high political level" to
discredit, intimidate and harass those who had successfully lodged claims
for protection in Australia. "It's difficult to imagine anything more
pernicious," he said.

Mr Manne said he was concerned for the woman's safety and would ask the
United Nations and other human rights organisations to intervene.

The allegations coincide with Indonesia's apparent dissatisfaction with
tough measures announced last week aimed at deterring Papuans from seeking
asylum in Australia. Dr Yudhoyono said yesterday: "Indonesia cannot be
harassed, Indonesia cannot be played with and we cannot let Indonesia be
deprived of fairness. Our stance is very clear that we have to review our
co-operation and relations with Australia until we clearly have fair
ground."

The secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Michael
L'Estrange, will outline the new measures to Mr Wirajuda this week.

The woman's husband, Yunus, has appealed to the Australian Government to
give his wife asylum, saying he had not had the opportunity to let her
know that the boat was leaving Papua in January "because I was being
chased".

Under the new policy it is unlikely Mr Wanggai could seek to sponsor his
wife to Australia until after he was granted permanent protection - which
could take three years.

The couple had not lived together for two years, with Mr Wanggai caring
for his daughter while his wife lived with her mother. Both insisted
yesterday that despite the estrangement, they wanted to live together with
Anike.

Mrs Wanggai disappeared in Jayapura on Tuesday, just before she said she
was due to fly to Jakarta to meet Dr Yudhoyono. She spent two days in
hiding before leaving with two others in a small boat for PNG.

While she was angry with her husband at the time for not telling her he
was leaving with Anike, she said she had since understood and agreed with
his actions.

She was pleased they were safe in Australia and did not want Anike to
return to Papua.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jakarta Post.com
Features
April 16, 2006
Give fair share to Papuans
Zaki Muttaqin

The demonstrations by Papuans demanding the closure of gold and copper
mining company PT Freeport Indonesia highlighted local people's
accumulated disappointment over the company's operation.

Papuans obviously feel that they don't get enough benefit from PT Freeport
Indonesia, which is controlled by one of the biggest American mining
companies.

Under existing arrangements, local people only get 1 percent of PT
Freeport Indonesia's total profit. That amount is not fair considering
that Papuans have rights over their ancestral land and are entitled to
enjoy the land's rich natural resources.

Currently, only a few Papuans hold "strategic positions" in PT Freeport
Indonesia. It's ironic that Papuans, and Indonesian people in general,
become strangers in their own motherland.

A study by the environment ministry suggested that PT Freeport Indonesia
has polluted the environment by disposing of its untreated tailings
(material left over from the mining process) into rivers there. The
ministry also placed the company in the black category, which is the worst
classification of environmental management quality.

The central government must react accordingly. It must evaluate the report
thoroughly and if it finds indications of collusion (between the company
and certain government officials), it must terminate PT Freeport
Indonesia's contract or punish the company by asking it to increase
compensation for Papuans and pay for the environmental destruction it
causes.

The central government must take serious measures to solve the problem
immediately and accommodate the aspirations of Papuans. The government
must not bow to pressure by any foreign country, including the United
States. It must show the world that we Indonesians have dignity and cannot
be intimidated by any other country.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RNZI (Radio New Zealand International)
Australia Strengthens Anti-Refugee Patrols
Monday: April 17, 2006

The Australian Government is to use planes based in Darwin and submarines,
warships and top-secret satellites to stop West Papuan refugees from
reaching Australia.

The Northern Territory News says the new surveillance effort will be
spearheaded by Customs vessels diverted from drug interdiction operations
in southern Australia and RAAF P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft.

Navy patrol boats will relieve the Customs vessels on drugs watch.

The surveillance effort is the key element of a healing strategy with
Indonesia after 42 West Papuans, who arrived in Cape York in January, were
granted refugee status.

The paper says the boats and planes will be supported by Darwin-based navy
patrol boats and larger warships, including frigates, that will be
diverted to the West Papua border area from exercises and en route to
operational deployment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Radio Australia/PNS
Vanuatu: Long-time Papuan Activist To Be Deported
Monday: April 17, 2006

Vanuatu’s Supreme Court Justice, Hamilson Bule has upheld a government
order to deport the Papuan activist, Andy Ayamiseba.

Mr Ayamiseba was deported to Australia last February under the immigration
act, which allows for a non-citizen to be deported if the minister rules
that the person is involved in activities detrimental to national
security.

Lawyers acting for Mr Ayamiseba immediately filed an appeal and got him
back into the country on a stay order of the judgement.

His lawyers said the internal affairs minister George Wells acted unfairly
and lacked reasonable supporting evidence. But the solicitor general,
Dudley Aru says the minister made the decision after seeking the opinion
of other appropriate authorities.

Justice Bulu upheld the minister’s order and said Mr Ayamiseba should be
deported as his activities were deemed detrimental to national security
and public order.

Mr Ayamiseba has lived in Vanuatu for 20 years on a Vanuatu diplomatic
passport.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dow Jones
Monday April 17, 1:37 PM
Indonesia Pres: Freeport Papua Mine Closure Not An Option
Jakarta (Dow Jones)

The Indonesian government won't consider a unilateral closure of
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.'s (FCS) massive Grasberg mine in Papua
despite allegations of poor environmental management at the facility,
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said Monday.

"If we unilaterally close (Grasberg), we'll be taken to the antitrust
court (where) we'll certainly lose and we'll have to pay billions of
dollars (in legal damages)," Yudhoyono told reporters.

Indonesia's Ministry of the Environment last month gave Freeport-McMoRan
"two to three years" to improve its management of the millions of tons of
waste ore, known as tailings, that are pumped out of the mine each year.

Failure to comply with the order would result in legal proceedings, the
ministry said.

The ministry's ultimatum followed the results of an investigation by a
team of independent experts tasked with assessing whether Freeport's mine
was damaging the environment.

Yudhoyono indicated that the government was seeking to calm simmering
resentment on Papua that has made Freeport's operations a lightning rod of
local protests in recent months.

"We will try to solve this case as well as possible so that nobody is
hurt," he said, without elaborating.

Yudhoyono's comments echo those of other senior government officials who
have reiterated that the government will honor the contracts of
international companies regardless of public protests against them.

Freeport-McMoRan has been a focal point of popular unrest in Papua since
February, when the company temporarily suspended mining operations after
protesters demanding the right to mine its waste ore blockaded the
facility.

A mob bludgeoned to death three police officers and an air force officer
last month in Jayapura, 400 kilometers from Grasberg, in a rampage that
began as a public protest demanding the mine's closure.

The protests reflect public perception in the province that revenues from
Freeport-McMoRan's local operations haven't benefited the bulk of poor
Papuans, Sidney Jones, project director for the International Crisis Group
in Jakarta, said earlier this month.

The New Orleans-based company, which started mining in Papua in 1972 under
a 50-year contract, paid $1.2 billion in taxes, royalties, dividends and
fees to the Indonesian government last year.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RPT-CNPC buys Indonesia oil block from local firm-source
Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:01 AM ET
Singapore, April 17 (Reuters)

China National Petroleum Corp. (CNPC) has bought an exploration block from
Indonesian company PT Waropen Perkasa as the Chinese firm spends its way
to overseas growth, a source familiar with the matter said on Monday.

CNPC purchased the Manokwari block in Indonesia's remote Papua province
from the little-known Indonesian party, which was awarded the onshore oil
and gas acreage by the Indonesian government in 2004, the source, who
asked not to be identified, told Reuters.

The seller has spent little on exploration on the block in the past two
years, he said.

He declined to give more details. A CNPC spokesman said he was not aware
of the transaction.

The Chinese giant has spent billions of dollars overseas to hunt for
energy sources to satisfy China's surging oil demand. It recently took
over PetroKazakhstan, which has substantial assets in the central Asian
state, for $4.2 billion.

CNPC is the parent company of Hong Kong and New York-listed PetroChina.