[Kabar-Irian] Irian News - 3/9/06

[Admin]

- Ambassador scolds pro-Papua mob
- US report might help Papuan boat people
- The Secret War Against the Defenseless People of West Papua
- Groups Write State Dept on Indonesia Military Aid
- Strict laws may trigger Indon 'backlash'
- Freeport and MNC crisis
- Illegal military payments by Freeport/Rio Tinto
*****************************

The Australian
Ambassador scolds pro-Papua mob
Geoff Elliott
March 10, 2006

Australia's US ambassador, Dennis Richardson, has attacked proponents of
self-determination for the Indonesian province of Papua.

Addressing a US-Indonesia business lunch, and in front of Indonesia
ambassador to the US, HE Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat, Mr Richardson
attacked the Papua lobby - which has support in the US Congress - as being
out of touch with democratic Indonesia.

His comments come amid delicate diplomatic moves over the fate of 43
Papuans who arrived by boat on Cape York and are claiming asylum in
Australia. They are now on Christmas Island but Indonesia says there is no
need for refugee status.

"Papua is part of the sovereign territory of Indonesia and always has
been. As far as Australia is concerned, Papua is an integral part of
Indonesia," Mr Richardson said in a blunt response to an audience member
expressing concern about Papua.

He said it was "possible to ask the question whether those whose raison
d'tre was (the independence of) East Timor has now become Papua and
perhaps those critics cling to an Indonesia that no longer exists".

"For them to accept the Indonesia of today and to actually reinforce the
positive developments in Indonesia is to deny them their raison d'tre," he
said. "And I certainly don't believe that policy approaches to Indonesia
should be held hostage by the issue of Papua."

A delighted Mr Parnohadiningrat, who served as Indonesia's ambassador in
Canberra in 2001 and 2002, offered a response at the end of the luncheon.

He said Australia and Indonesia had developed strong mutual co-operation
over terrorism and people-smuggling since 2001 and it meant that "never in
the history of the two countries has the relationship been as excellent
has it has been today".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
SevenNews (Australia)
US report might help Papuan boat people
Date: 09/03/06
By Rob Taylor

A US State Department report alleging torture and intimidation by
Indonesian security forces against Papuan separatists may add weight to
the case of 43 Papuan boat people seeking asylum in Australia.

The US report on human rights in Indonesia said abuses had decreased in
the past year, but there were still serious problems in Papua province,
where separatists have struggled against Jakarta's rule for decades.

Widespread intimidation was occurring even though the military estimated
there were only 620 guerrillas belonging to the Free Papua Movement, or
OPM, armed with only around 150 weapons among them, the report said.

The use of torture to obtain confessions from suspects was most apparent
in Papua and Aceh, where rebels have concluded a peace deal with the
Indonesian government.

"Torture was sometimes used to obtain confessions, punish suspects, and
seek information that incriminated others in criminal activity," the
report said.

"Torture used included random beatings, bitings, whippings, slashings, and
burnings."

The report said the Papua Legal Aid Foundation and national rights
watchdog Komnas HAM had reported 35 cases of torture by security forces in
Papua during the year.

"On July 14, soldiers allegedly tortured a presumed OPM member by slashing
his face and body with a knife and razor and then pouring petrol over his
head and setting his hair on fire," it said.

"On July 22, 14 soldiers allegedly tortured two Papuan civilians over the
course of a day.

"The soldiers reportedly kicked, bit, and punched them.

"The soldiers then tied up one of the victims and set fire to dried weeds
on his back after whipping him."

The report - part of a worldwide human rights survey - may add weight to
asylum claims lodged by the 43 Papuan asylum seekers, including
independence leaders, women and children.

The group landed in Cape York in January after sailing to Australia in an
outrigger canoe.

They are being detained by immigration authorities on the Australian
territory of Christmas Island while the federal government assesses their
claims.

Indonesia's government has demanded the group be sent home and said they
had no valid claims to persecution.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono promised Prime Minister John Howard the
group would not be harmed if their asylum claims were rejected.

The State Department report said while democratic change in Indonesia was
leading to an improvement in human rights, there were still serious
problems.

"Inadequate resources, poor leadership, and limited accountability
contributed to serious violations by security forces," the report said.

"Widespread corruption further degraded an already weak regard for rule of
law and contributed to impunity."

The head of Indonesian rights group Elsham, Ifdhal Kasim, said it was
unclear if the US report would help the Papuans' case.

"It's a general report of human rights in Papua," he told AAP.

"The asylum seekers are a specific case and what hasn't been found yet is
whether it is true they are being chased by the military or others."
-- © 2006 AAP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
www.dissidentvoice.org
The Secret War Against the Defenseless People of West Papua
by John Pilger
March 9, 2006
-- First Published in The New Statesman

In 1993, I and four others traveled clandestinely across East Timor to
gather evidence of the genocide committed by the Indonesian dictatorship.
Such was the depth of silence about this tiny country that the only map I
could find before I set out was one with blank spaces stamped "Relief Data
Incomplete." Yet few places had been as defiled and abused by murderous
forces. Not even Pol Pot had succeeded in dispatching, proportionally, as
many people as the Indonesian tyrant Suharto had done in collusion with
the "international community."

In East Timor, I found a country littered with graves, their black crosses
crowding the eye: crosses on peaks, crosses in tiers on the hillsides,
crosses beside the road. They announced the murder of entire communities,
from babies to the elderly. In 2000, when the East Timorese, displaying a
collective act of courage with few historical parallels, finally won their
freedom, the United Nations set up a truth commission; on 24 January, its
2,500 pages were published. I have never read anything like it. Using
mostly official documents, it recounts in painful detail the entire
disgrace of East Timor's blood sacrifice. It says that 180,000 East
Timorese were killed by Indonesian troops or died from enforced
starvation. It describes the "primary roles" in this carnage of the
governments of the United States, Britain and Australia. America's
"political and military support were fundamental" in crimes that ranged
from "mass executions to forced resettlements, sexual and other horrific
forms of torture as well as abuse against children." Britain, a
co-conspirator in the invasion, was the main arms supplier. If you want to
see through the smokescreen currently around Iraq, and understand true
terrorism, read this document.

As I read it, my mind went back to the letters Foreign Office officials
wrote to concerned members of the public and MPs following the showing of
my film Death of a Nation. Knowing the truth, they denied that
British-supplied Hawk jets were blowing straw-roofed villages to bits and
that British-supplied Heckler and Koch machine guns were finishing off the
occupants. They even lied about the scale of suffering.

And it is all happening again, wrapped in the same silence and with the
"international community" playing the same part as backer and beneficiary
of the crushing of a defenseless people. Indonesia's brutal occupation of
West Papua, a vast, resource-rich province -- stolen from its people, like
East Timor -- is one of the great secrets of our time. Recently, the
Australian minister of "communications", Senator Helen Coonan, failed to
place it on the map of her own region, as if it did not exist.

An estimated 100,000 Papuans, or 10 percent of the population, have been
killed by the Indonesian military. This is a fraction of the true figure,
according to refugees. In January, 43 West Papuans reached Australia's
north coast after a hazardous six-week journey in a dugout. They had no
food, and had dribbled their last fresh water into their children's
mouths. "We knew," said Herman Wainggai, the leader, "that if the
Indonesian military had caught us, most of us would have died. They treat
West Papuans like animals. They kill us like animals. They have created
militias and jihadis to do just that. It is the same as East Timor."

For over a year, an estimated 6,000 people have been hiding in dense
jungle after their villages and crops were destroyed by Indonesian special
forces. Raising the West Papuan flag is "treason". Two men are serving 15
and ten-year sentences for merely trying. Following an attack on one
village, a man was presented as an "example" and petrol poured over him
and his hair set alight.

When the Netherlands gave Indonesia its independence in 1949, it argued
that West Papua was a separate geographic and ethnic entity with a
distinctive national character. A report published last November by the
Institute of Netherlands History in The Hague revealed that the Dutch had
secretly recognized the "unmistakable beginning of the formation of a
Papuan state", but were bullied by the administration of John F Kennedy to
accept "temporary" Indonesian control over what a White House adviser
called "a few thousand miles of cannibal land".

The West Papuans were conned. The Dutch, Americans, British and
Australians backed an "Act of Free Choice" ostensibly run by the UN. The
movements of a UN monitoring team of 25 were restricted by the Indonesian
military and they were denied interpreters. In 1969, out of a population
of 800,000, some 1,000 West Papuans "voted". All were selected by the
Indonesians. At gunpoint, they "agreed" to remain under the rule of
General Suharto -- who had seized power in 1965 in what the CIA later
described as "one of the worst mass murders of the late 20th century." In
1981, the Tribunal on Human Rights in West Papua, held in exile, heard
from Eliezer Bonay, Indonesia's first governor of the province, that
approximately 30,000 West Papuans had been murdered during 1963-69. Little
of this was reported in the west.

The silence of the "international community" is explained by the fabulous
wealth of West Papua. In November 1967, soon after Suharto had
consolidated his seizure of power, the Time-Life Corporation sponsored an
extraordinary conference in Geneva. The participants included the most
powerful capitalists in the world, led by the banker David Rockefeller.
Sitting opposite them were Suharto's men, known as the "Berkeley mafia,"
as several had enjoyed US government scholarships to the University of
California at Berkeley. Over three days, the Indonesian economy was carved
up, sector by sector. An American and European consortium was handed West
Papua's nickel; American, Japanese and French companies got its forests.
However, the prize -- the world's largest gold reserve and third-largest
copper deposit, literally a mountain of copper and gold -- went to the US
mining giant Freeport-McMoran. On the board is Henry Kissinger, who, as US
secretary of state, gave the "green light" to Suharto to invade East
Timor, says the Dutch report.

Freeport is today probably the biggest single source of revenue for the
Indonesian regime: the company is said to have handed Jakarta 33 billion
dollars between 1992 and 2004. Little of this has reached the people of
West Papua. Last December 55 people reportedly starved to death in the
district of Yahukimo. The Jakarta Post noted the "horrible irony" of
hunger in such an "immensely rich" province. According to the World Bank,
"38 per cent of Papua's population is living in poverty, more than double
the national average."

The Freeport mines are guarded by Indonesia's special forces, who are
among the world's most seasoned terrorists, as their documented crimes in
East Timor demonstrate. Known as Kopassus, they have been armed by the
British and trained by the Australians. Last December, the Howard
government in Canberra announced that it would resume "co-operation" with
Kopassus at the Australian SAS base near Perth. In an inversion of the
truth, the then Australian defense minister, Senator Robert Hill,
described Kopassus as having "the most effective capability to respond to
a counter-hijack or hostage recovery threat." The files of human-rights
organizations overflow with evidence of Kopassus's terrorism. On 6 July
1998, on the West Papuan island of Biak, just north of Australia, special
forces massacred more than 100 people, most of them women.

However, the Indonesian military has not been able to crush the popular
Free Papua Movement (OPM). Since 1965, almost alone, the OPM has reminded
the Indonesians, often audaciously, that they are invaders. In the past
two months, the resistance has caused the Indonesians to rush more troops
to West Papua. Two British-supplied Tactica armoured personnel carriers
fitted with water cannon have arrived from Jakarta. These were first
delivered during the late Robin Cook's "ethical dimension" in foreign
policy. Hawk fighter-bombers, made by BAE Systems, have been used against
West Papuan villages.

The fate of the 43 asylum-seekers in Australia is precarious. In
contravention of international law, the Howard government has moved them
from the mainland to Christmas Island, which is part of an Australian
"exclusion zone" for refugees. We should watch carefully what happens to
these people. If the history of human rights is not the history of great
power's impunity, the UN must return to West Papua, as it did finally to
East Timor.

Or do we always have to wait for the crosses to multiply?

* For information on how to help, visit: www.freewestpapua.org.
-- John Pilger is an internationally renowned investigative journalist and
documentary filmmaker. His newest book, Freedom Next Time, will be
published in June by Bantam Press. Visit John Pilger's website:
www.johnpilger.com.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Press Release: East Timor Action Network
Friday, 10 March 2006, 11:50 am
Groups Write State Dept on Indonesia Military Aid
P.O. Box 15774, Washington, DC 20003

8 March 2006

Assistant Secretary Christopher R. Hill
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Via Facsimile 202-647-7350

Dear Mr. Assistant Secretary:

We note with dismay remarks attributed to you by media sources at your
March 3 press conference in Jakarta. Reportedly, you stated that the U.S.
was "very satisfied with the approach of the TNI (the Indonesian military)
toward reform," and expressed confidence that "the Indonesian military is
continuing on its reform path and we want to assist in that process."

While we all wish to see positive change in Indonesia, it does a
disservice to the advancement of real democratic progress to exaggerate
the impact of small reforms, which continue to be overshadowed by
Indonesia's vicious cycle of impunity and military insubordination to
civilian authority.

Such claims of progress, coupled with Secretary Rice's November 2005
decision to waive restrictions imposed by a bipartisan congressional
consensus to maintain pressure for military reform, forfeit leverage for
real reform.

Indeed, the reality is that the TNI remains a largely rogue institution
which commits human rights violations without concern for the law. Its
political power and corruption jeopardize democracy. Links to and support
of thuggish militia, including Jihadist groups, that intimidate minority
populations reveal unchanged adherence to military tactics brutally
employed in 1999 against the people of East Timor.

A candid review of current TNI performance clearly indicates a
continuation of, and in some instances a return to, Suharto-era military
behavior. For example, the State Department's own 2004 annual human rights
report for Indonesia notes that "retired and active duty military officers
known to have committed serious human rights violations occupied or were
promoted to senior positions in the Government or TNI." Not one Indonesian
officer has served a day in jail for crimes against humanity inflicted on
the people of East Timor and the UN mission in 1999 or before. In the
small number of other cases that have gone to trial, defendants have been
limited to low-level officials, sentences are consistently not
commensurate with crimes, and command responsibility is neither assessed
nor pursued. This cycle of impunity encourages military personnel to
commit abuse and intimidates those who seek to stop it.

TNI involvement in politics and civilian government administration remains
overbearing and appears to be strengthening. While the State Department
has made much about the military's relinquishment of assigned
parliamentary seats in 2004, the TNI actually retains far more important
powers through its vast territorial command structure. Such a structure
constitutes a shadow government that is usually more powerful than the
elected or appointed civilian bureaucracy. New TNI leadership has no plans
to relinquish this structure. Furthermore, the 2004 local government law
relaxed prohibitions on military officers running in local elections, and
military officers can occupy senior posts in the Department of Defense, as
well as in the areas of drug enforcement and intelligence.

The vastly corrupt nature of the TNI remains unchanged. It operates beyond
civilian government control in large measure because it draws most of its
funding from non-budget sources. The president has so far failed to issue
regulations required to implement a 2004 law ending military-controlled
business interests by 2009, nor are there timetables or benchmarks for
full implementation. In the very limited actions taken so far, the
military has employed a narrow definition of what constitutes a military
business, excluding, for example, cooperatives that constitute a
significant portion of military holdings. In addition to these formal
military enterprises, many units engage in illegal activities, including
trafficking in persons and narcotics, prostitution rings, illegal logging
and fishing, and extortion that sometimes targets U.S. firms. These
illegal businesses need to be shut down.

Progress has occurred in some areas, notably the still-fragile peace
process in Aceh. However, it is essential that the U.S. exercise leverage
to ensure the Indonesian military does not play a disruptive role, as it
did in 2003. Moreover, there are fears that soldiers withdrawn from Aceh
are being sent to West Papua. Regrettably, a ban on foreign journalists
and others has prevented verification of this and other allegations of
serious abuse in that easternmost province.

We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations, request the
opportunity to meet with you to discuss the continued absence of
meaningful TNI reform. We wish also to express our concern that the
Administration's abandonment of congressionally imposed restrictions on
assistance to the Indonesian military rewards and encourages continued
human rights violations, impunity, and corruption, thus undermining
Indonesian democracy. We would also welcome the chance to discuss ways for
the Administration both to credibly measure reform progress and create
incentives for it.

We thank you for your consideration and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Karen Orenstein, National Coordinator East Timor and Indonesia Action Network
Bama Athreya, Deputy Director International Labor Rights Fund
Rev. James Kofski, Associate Asia-Pacific and Middle East Issues Maryknoll
Office for Global Concerns
Edmund McWilliams West Papua Advocacy Team Robert F. Kennedy Memorial
Human Rights Center
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sydney Morning Herald
Strict laws may trigger Indon 'backlash'
March 9, 2006 - 6:09PM

Islamic hardliners demanding the introduction of austere sharia-style laws
are pushing secular-minded Indonesians too far and risk triggering a
backlash and even "slaughter", one of the country's leading intellectuals
warned.

The editor of the respected Tempo newsmagazine, Bambang Harymurti, likened
the danger to the 1965 anti-communist bloodbath which some say left up to
one million people dead.

A fierce debate over sweeping anti-pornography and morality laws that are
backed by Islamic parties in the parliament have infuriated the vast
majority of moderate Indonesian Muslims.

There have even been threats of secession in mainly-Hindu Bali and
Christian-dominated Papua province.

Balinese leaders have warned bikini-clad foreign tourists could be
arrested if the laws are enforced.

Indonesia is the world's largest Muslim nation but has largely shunned
strict Islamic ways seen in the Middle East.

"People are angry, they are up to the neck, but they are afraid of them
because they are militant and they are numbering hundreds, sometimes
thousands," Harymurti said of the morality campaigners.

"But because they've created such bad will for a few years, when suddenly
the tables turn, people are more than ready to basically slaughter."

Indonesia's parliament, which contains a large bloc of Islamic-based MPs,
is debating whether to amend the criminal code to outlaw anything that
could offend decency or "arouse lust" in children.

That includes husbands and wives kissing in public, unmarried couples
living together and homosexual sex, along with any flash of thighs,
navels, bottoms or breasts, punishable by up to 10 years in jail and fines
of more than $A100,000.

Other provinces like Aceh have moved to implement sharia laws, often
without the wide support of ordinary people.

But the proposed morality crackdown is drawing fire from Muslim moderates,
as well as most largely Hindu Balinese and Christian Papuans, who have
accused Islamic hardliners of attempting to impose sharia law by stealth
with the new bills.

Harymurti said radicals like the Islamic Defenders Front, whose followers
wore military-style camouflage and sometimes attacked nightclubs and bars,
had similarities with communist youth groups crushed following the 1965
army coup which installed the dictator Suharto.

"I told them you have to be careful, because the people are quite angry
with you right now," he said.

"They just need some snap before they really put you in your place.

"We don't want what happened in '65 to happen again in Indonesia, so it is
better that they stop taking these unilateral actions and start to behave
like a group in a civilised society."

The chairman of the parliamentary committee reviewing the laws has
promised changes to reflect concern in Bali and Papua.

Loose definitions of pornography may also be tightened following reports
of attacks by hardline Muslim vigilantes on working women travelling alone
at night in parts of Jakarta.
-- © 2006 AAP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Jakarta Post.com
Opinion
March 09, 2006
Freeport and MNC crisis
Alpha Amirrachman, Serang, Banten

Local miners, armed with bows and arrows, clashed with security guards,
soldiers and police after they sifted through PT Freeport Indonesia's
tailings in Papua (The Jakarta Post, Feb. 27, 2006). It is not unusual for
a multinational company operating in a developing country to be embroiled
in conflict over environmental degradation. While 77 percent of U.S.
companies -- many of them have grown into multinational ones -- have a
formal system in place to proactively identify key environmental issues,
the attack on Freeport in Papua certainly reveals a sad story.

Freeport arrived in Indonesia in 1967, before the government under
Soeharto formulated the foreign joint-investment law, enabling the U.S.
gold and copper mining company to hold a wholly-owned subsidiary. The
company has amassed incredible wealth from its operation. It has been
accused of polluting Otomona River, by constantly dumping crude copper
tailings into Ajika River. Environmental groups have revealed that around
420 square kilometers of the area surrounding the company has been
environmentally damaged.

>From an organizational point of view, the clash between local Papuans and
the mining giant should be regarded as the failure of a modern
organization to deal humanely with marginalized people. Due to the
incident, the discourse on the concept of a postmodern organization has
come to the fore as it has failed to achieve its initial noble objective
of leading human beings to a more humane, advanced and civilized society.
However, the notion of postmodern organization itself is not
unproblematic.

While postmodern organization is often seen as an antithesis of modern
organization which is believed to be more environmentally friendly and
flexible, with continuous education and empowerment and greater
participation of marginalized groups within and outside the organization,
there has not been a fixed definition of postmodernism. Likewise,
postmodernism hypercritical of modernism and its insistence on abandoning
the latter has been criticized, too, as Schmidt (1994) asserts that
"modernism is a continuum and it must be reflected, cannot be abandoned."

Despite its perceived greater flexibility and noble objectives, there is
still doubt that the "less authoritative" postmodern organization could
have a concrete and effective agenda to impose an education that could
empower individuals and to deal with the issues of the minority. The
attempt of the defenders of postmodern organization to revoke authority is
debatable, as it is unthinkable that an organization can effectively
operate without having authority. Perhaps, what an organization needs is a
more humane, sensitive, flexible and accountable type of authority
exercised by democratic leadership. What is clear is that the emergence of
postmodern organization has given a fresh catalyst to conduct a critical
evaluation of modern multinational companies.

So how do we see postmodern organizations? There seems to be two schools
of thought here. First is to regard this as a totally different form of
organization that views itself as an antithesis of the classical modern
organization. Second, is to look at this phenomenon as a continuous and
gradual process of evolution of a contemporary organization into something
more humane. Therefore a middle path is sought for compromise.

Equally important, this discourse on postmodern organization should be
seen as a reflection of the success and failure of the modern organization
in the ongoing quest toward the betterment of any organization. So can
this quest help multinational companies to sensitively and comprehensively
deal with the issues of local people? It is clear that the continuous
transfer of knowledge, honest dialog, just and transparent empowerment
programs, and tangible mutual collaboration between multinational
companies such as Freeport and indigenous people within and outside the
organization in inevitable.

Multinational companies should show their moral determination to
ultimately return most of their privileges to the local people who are now
still incapable due to the lack of knowledge, know-how and technology.
Otherwise, local people would be increasingly marginalized, the
environment would further deteriorate, and multinational companies would
grow into a serious threat to civilization.

The Freeport row would not have occurred without the complicity of the
elite groups of the country, both civilian and military, who have long
benefited from the exploitation of Papua's natural resources. They too
should abandon their personal greed, put pressure on Freeport and generate
the maximum benefit for the development of the local people.
-- The writer is lecturer at Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa State University
(Untirta) in Banten and a researcher at the International Center for Islam
and Pluralism (ICIP).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Down To Earth
International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia
DTE 68 February 2006
West Papua resources
Illegal military payments by Freeport/Rio Tinto

Freeport, operator of the giant Grasberg goldmine in West Papua, is in the
public spotlight once again over its financial relationship with the
Indonesian security forces.

After almost forty years of largely fruitless protest, Amungme and Kamoro
indigenous owners of the Freeport concession area in West Papua can be
forgiven their cynicism at the latest push for accountability from the
US-based mining company, Freeport. The Amungme, the traditional landowners
of the Grasberg mine site, have been protesting since negotiations over
the mine began. Protests against Freeport were recorded in 1967 even
before the Contract of Work was signed between General Suharto and
Freeport, and protests leading to the deaths of four people were recorded
in 1968.[1] Since then, hundreds of human rights abuses have been reported
in the mine area.

During a recent interview in Jakarta, the respected Amungme traditional
leader ('Mama') Yosepha Alomang demonstrated that she did not need to read
the New York Times to know that although the government security forces
[including police and military] receive three free meals a day from
Freeport, they still receive generous "food allowances" and other
payments. The payments were recently revealed to the wider world in an
exposé by Jane Perlez and Raymond Bonner published in the New York Times.

According to interviews and accounting records obtained by Perlez and
Bonner, Freeport paid around US$30 million to the military and police
between 1998 and 2004. Most damning, those sources indicated that Freeport
made payments of tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars into the
pockets of numerous senior military officers, ostensibly for food or
"military projects".[2]

Freeport does not deny these payments in its letter responding to the NYT
investigative report, instead asserting that "we disclose our financial
support in a transparent manner" and stating that the security forces are
"deployed and directed by the Government of Indonesia".[3] In saying this,
Freeport is severely stretching the truth to avoid the obvious conclusion
that it has been making illegal, clandestine payments directly to public
employees. In fact, despite what Freeport says, these direct payments were
not publicly known before they were unearthed by NGOs and journalists.
Indeed, in several cases, they have been denied by the recipients who seem
to be aware that such payments are inappropriate.

Spying
Nor is it convincing when Freeport claims that the security forces are
only directed by the government. Although on many occasions, security
forces are a nuisance for Freeport, stealing from the company and running
illegal businesses in the mine area, nevertheless the military sometimes
certainly acts as if in the direct employ of the company. Soldiers are to
be found travelling in company vehicles, frequenting company posts and
have even been photographed wearing company uniforms.[4] At Freeport's
request, Indonesian military intelligence officers worked with Freeport to
intercept phone and email communications by critical environmental
NGOs.[5] Security forces supported the company by interfering with a
lawsuit launched by the Amungme leader Tom Beanal, stealing affidavits
before they could be sent to the Amungme's US lawyer Martin Regan, and
having the lawyer deported from the province when he attempted to meet his
clients personally. Security forces prevented Yosepha Alomang from
departing to present Amungme grievances to the Rio Tinto AGM in London.
Security forces also deported US human rights investigator Abigail Abrash,
reportedly at the request of Tom Green, an ex-US military attaché whom
Freeport recruited at the suggestion of another staffer, a former CIA
operative.[6]

Investigation
In 2003, Freeport was forced to admit it made payments to the Indonesian
military and police of over US$11 million during 2001-2002 (see DTE 57:1,
http://dte.gn.apc.org/57Frp.htm). Last year, Global Witness reported that
the company had made payments to individual military and police officers.
The NGO called for Freeport to be investigated under US and Indonesian
laws (see DTE 66:16, http://dte.gn.apc.org/66brf.htm and
http://www.globalwitness.org/reports/show.php/en.00077.html). The NYT's
latest revelations have lent weight to this demand.

The Indonesian environmental NGO WALHI, which has engaged in legal battles
with the company in the past, has welcomed the announcement of the
Parliamentary Standing Commission on Environment's plans to reopen an
enquiry into Freeport. Enquiries have also been announced by the Minister
for Mining and Energy and the Minister for Environment.[7] Finally, an
internal defense investigation is underway into Freeport's direct payments
to commanders. This investigation is under suspicion, however, because the
Inspector General of the Indonesian Army, Major General Mahidin Simbolon,
who is ordinarily responsible for such investigations, apparently received
direct personal payments of one quarter of a million dollars from Freeport
during his time in Papua between May 2001 and March 2003.[8]

Commenting on this news, Yosepha Alomang expressed little confidence in a
new parliamentary enquiry, based on previous visits organised by Freeport
at the request of parliamentarians. According to Alomang, such visits
showcase employee residential areas such as Kuala Kencana - the
construction of this area required the forced relocation of indigenous
people from their traditional lands. "They (parliamentarians) don't visit
where we indigenous people live, they just stay at the Sheraton and see
what the company shows them. It's a waste of time." she said.[9]

1. UNCEN-ANU Baseline Studies Project, Appendix #1, Amungme Bibliography,
1998.
2 Perlez, Jane and Bonner, Raymond, ‘Below a Mountain of Wealth, a River
of Waste’, The New York Times, Dec 27, 2005
3 Adkerson, Richard, CEO Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc, letter to
editors of NYT, Jan 11, 2006.
4 Leith, Denise. The Politics of Power; Freeport in Suharto's Indonesia.
University of Hawai'i Press, 2003.
5 Perlez and Bonner, op cit.
6 Leith, op cit.
7 Govt to Set Up Team to Study Freeport Case, ANTARA News, Feb 08 2006;
8 Paying For Protection, The Freeport Mine and the Indonesian Security
Forces, Global Witness, July 2005.
9 Alomang, Yosepha. Interview by the author, Jakarta, February 2006.

(For more information about Yosepha Alomang, see DTE 63:8,
http://dte.gn.apc.org/63PAP.HTM)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ADB to fund BP’s Tangguh gas project
Despite protests from NGOs, the Asian Development Bank has approved a loan
for BP's giant Tangguh gas project in West Papua.

In December 2005, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) decided to put US$350
million towards the $5.5 billion gas extraction and liquefied gas
processing plant, now being developed by Anglo-US multinational BP, in
Bintuni Bay, in the western part of West Papua.

This project has attracted critical attention because of the actual and
potential impacts on local people and the environment which supports their
livelihoods. West Papua's history of violence against the indigenous
population by the Indonesian security forces associated with resource
extraction has also been a major concern (see DTE 65:1,
http://dte.gn.apc.org/65TAN.HTM for more background).

DTE's letter to the ADB Board members pointed out that the development is
located in an area where indigenous Papuans were not able to exercise
their right to free, prior and informed consent due to the security
situation and the denial of customary land rights at the time land
acquisition for the project began. The letter also highlighted:

- the fact that human rights abuses by the security forces in West Papua
are widespread, with little or no attempt to bring perpetrators to
justice;
- the increase in military personnel in West Papua, including a new
Kostrad (Strategic Reserve Command) division in  Sorong - relatively near
the project location, in the western part of the territory - and the
potential for an increase in human rights violations;
- the social tensions caused by the project in the impacted villages, and
the fact that some affected villagers have opposed the project;
- the serious concerns expressed by civil society groups in Papua and
internationally in a December 2004 letter to BP and which centred on human
rights, transparency and the wider Papuan context (see
http://dte.gn.apc.org/65CSL.HTM);
- the vehement opposition to the project by many Papuans, because they
believe Indonesia has no right to make decisions over, or benefit from,
resource extraction in a territory which was acquired by force and without
any genuine act of self-determination for Papuans.
- the concerns over environmental impacts, which threaten mangroves,
fisheries and local livelihoods.

The letter also stated that the project is aimed at serving the needs of
international gas consumers, rather than the Papuans' own energy needs and
is based on the priorities of private companies and the Indonesian
government, rather than on Papuans' own development priorities. As such
the project "will lay the ADB open to the question why public money is
being channelled to this project, when it could be used to promote
sustainable, renewable energy which benefits the local population and
which contributes towards poverty alleviation".
(DTE letter to ADB Board members, 13/Dec/05)

A joint letter from Indonesian NGOs WALHI (the Indonesian Environment
Forum), mining advocacy network (JATAM) and the Anti Debt Coalition (KAU);
pointed to the project's flawed environmental impact assessment and to
community dissatisfaction with the low compensation levels paid for their
land.

The Indonesian NGOs also protested at the total lack of information
available in the Indonesian language, which was crucial to enable informed
public participation in the ADB decision-making process. The NGOs called
for the decision on financing Tangguh to be postponed pending the
provision of complete information to the Indonesian public, including in
the Indonesian language. (WALHI, JATAM. KAU letter to ADB, December 2005)

The US-based NGO, Environmental Defense, wrote to the ADB to support the
Indonesian NGOs' concerns. Referring to a November 2005 report by the ADB
president, which recommends that board members approve the loan, the NGO
points to concerns over access to resources restricted by the project's
gas installations, plus pollution from the LNG plant. Environmental
Defense was concerned that the Bank failed to prioritise identified social
and environmental risks in its recommendation report, focussing instead on
the project's economic risks.

Despite the many well-publicised concerns, the ADB president's report to
the board argues that the loan is justified because it will, among other
things, contribute to sustainable economic growth (and thereby poverty
reduction); demonstrate a resumption of private sector confidence in
Indonesia; and reassure the government, private investors, LNG purchasers
and financiers that the project meets international standards and best
practices, “with critical environment and social requirements being fully
satisfied."

According to the ADB's project profile, Tangguh is also in line with the
ADB's energy policy that supports the development of ‘cleaner’ fuels with
private sector participation and will provide ‘environmentally benign’ LNG
to support cleaner fuel usage in other countries in the region, especially
China and Korea. According to Tangguh's environmental assessment
documents, summarised and updated last year by ADB, the project will still
produce 4.67 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year to produce 7.6 mt
LNG per year. The CO2 produced by burning the LNG will produce a further
20.9 mtpa. While this represents a reduction in CO2 emissions from coal
(calculated as producing 40.88 mtpa for the same amount of energy) it is
still hard to see how 25.57 million tonnes of CO2 can be described as
environmentally benign.

Moreover, these ‘benefits’ will be enjoyed far from Papua, while local
people suffer from increased pollution in the immediate environment. As
highlighted in Environmental Defense’s letter, ADB's report to the board
indicates that the levels of CO2, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and
particulates will contribute to local air pollution, but these
environmental costs will "to some extent be offset by any environmental
benefits to be gained by replacing coal or oil with LNG."  Environmental
Defense responds "this argument is hardly one that bodes well for the
health of project-impacted peoples or for the ADB's 'development mandate'
requirements." (Environmental Defense letter to ADB, December 2005, see
www.forum-adb.org).

Poverty reduction?
Past experience in West Papua shows that resource extraction projects are
not linked to poverty reduction. The Freeport/Rio Tinto gold mine has been
operating for more than three decades, bringing vast profits for the
company shareholders and substantial tax revenues for the Indonesian
government. Officially, Papua is the second wealthiest province in
Indonesia. However, it has not helped lift the West Papuan population out
of poverty.

Recently published World Bank figures show that, despite an average growth
rate of 10% over the past ten years, and the increased revenue flows since
'Special Autonomy' was introduced in 2002, forty percent of Papuans still
live below the poverty line - more than double the national average. A
third of Papuan children don't go to school and nine out of ten villages
do not have basic health services with a health centre, doctor or midwife.

Given this history, what is the guarantee that Tangguh - and the public
money that the ADB is contributing - will bring about meaningful poverty
reduction?

(Source: Papua Public Expenditure Analysis Overview Report, executive
summary, received 9/Nov/05, Guardian Unlimited 29/Nov/05)

Papua's wider context studiously ignored
The ADB's 30-page report to the board makes no mention of Papua's wider
political context, despite its clear relevance for the project.

Issues of concern include the increasing levels of troops stationed in
Papua (see DTE 65:5, http://dte.gn.apc.org/65TAN.HTM) and the ongoing
atrocities committed by security forces against Papuans. Recent incidents
include troops firing into a crowd in Paniai in January 2006, killing a
14-year old school student and seriously wounding two others.

West Papua's political turmoil too, has direct relevance for the project's
legitimacy and economic impacts. Late last year, the 1969 'Act of Free
Choice' in West Papua was confirmed as a sham in a report commissioned by
the Dutch government. The five-year study, by Dutch academic Professor
Pieter Drooglever, was launched in November. It details the fraudulent
process which resulted in West Papua's illegal annexation by Indonesia.
The report also documents the international political influences that led
key governments to support the annexation, even though the Act of Free
Choice had been anything but free. The Dutch foreign minister has since
assured Indonesia that the report is ‘superfluous’, but it is expected to
lend weight to international calls for the gross injustice of 1969 to be
put right.

The report was welcomed by Papuans, but demonstrations in the capital,
Jayapura, organised to highlight the findings, were broken up by police.
The report is expected to give a boost to Papua's independence movement,
which Indonesia remains determined to suppress. Jakarta's half-hearted
commitments to Special Autonomy for West Papua have not, as designed,
undermined the pro-independence voice. There is widespread opposition to
Jakarta's attempt to divide West Papua into two or more provinces, and to
impose an unelected Papuan Peoples Council (MRP) to rubberstamp this
process. The MRP was inaugurated on October 31st. and is supposed to give
some decision-making powers to Papuan indigenous, women and church
representatives. The fact that MRP members were selected, rather than
elected, sparked demonstrations and more suppression by the security
forces.

A Papuan voice
The ADB's decision not to consider the wider context chimes with BP's own
position - a position which has been challenged by civil society groups
within Papua itself and internationally.

In a letter to BP, Papuan Baptist churches leader, Reverend Socratez
Sofyan Yoman, wrote in July 2005:

"Your website and brochures say that everything in your 'Project Area' is
wonderful. You tell us that you have built a new village and that you are
being so careful not to harm the shrimps in our sea. You show photos of
smiling Papuan children, but you do not say that outside your 'Project
Area' my people are being slaughtered like pigs by the same government you
share tea with in Jakarta and Jayapura. What gives you the right to split
one part of our land away from the rest and say that everything in 'your
area' is fine?"

He also points to the link between profit-making projects, the military
and human rights abuses, warning BP that it will be difficult to avoid the
mistakes made at the Freeport/Rio Tinto gold mine (see separate article,
above).

"Whether you like it or not, wherever there is money, the TNI will be
there sooner or later to lap it up. They will create an ‘incident’, blame
the OPM* and then insist that they provide 'protection', at a price, for a
'vital national asset'. You say that you are being so careful to avoid
Freeport's mistakes, but I have to say on behalf of my people that if you
really cared about us Papuans as much as you say, you would not take this
very great risk with our lives." (Letter to Lord Browne, BP chief
executive, 30/Jul/05)

(Additional source: Tapol letter to Jack Straw 24/Jan/2006. Tapol has also
written to the British foreign secretary to protest against Indonesia's
deployment in West Papua of British-made armoured personnel carriers
fitted with water cannons - see http://tapol.gn.apc.org/)
--*Organisasi Papua Merdeka = Free Papua Movement