[Kabar-Irian] News: May 2-3 2006

[Admin]

May 2-3 2006
KABAR IRIAN NEWS

TOPICS

* West Papua’s forgotten asylum seekers (previously sent?)
* Papua's 43rd anniversary draws a mixed crowd, and a new chief
* Austral Policy Forum 06-14A: Australia, Indonesia and the Papuan crises
* Vanuatu Government told it should have hard evidence before deporting
Papuan
* Andy’s deportation submission to Vanuatu Supreme Court awaiting decision
* ABC Correspondent's Notebook: "Andy's Deportation Dilemnas"
* Papua strains regional relationships
* Australian Immigration Minister’s Papua nationalism comments
"despicable" say Greens
* Norway Voices Concern About Papua Press Ban
* Papua a dilemma for RI, Australia
* Papua needs support


---

West Papua’s forgotten asylum seekers

Printed from Australian Policy Online (www.apo.org.au)  13-04-2006

The arrival of 43 asylum seekers in Australia in January 2006 has again
brought the issue of West Papua to international

attention. The Australian government is studying proposals for the Royal
Australian Navy, Air Force and Coastwatch to

coordinate joint patrols with the Indonesian navy, to halt further boats
travelling from Merauke and other southern ports to

Australian shores.

But restrictions on the sea passage from West Papua to Australia will
place renewed burdens on Papua New Guinea, as asylum

seekers may be forced to flee across the land border. During the recent
debate over Australia-Indonesia relations, there has

been little discussion about how Papua New Guinea will be affected.
There’s also been limited media coverage about nearly

8000 West Papuan refugees and asylum seekers already living in relocation
camps in Papua New Guinea, many of whom have been

there for more than twenty years.

TO GET to East Awin refugee camp in Papua New Guinea is quite a trip. From
Kiunga in PNG’s Western Province, you travel along

the Fly River by motorised canoe for over an hour. The camp is located
another 46 kilometres into the bush, after a bumpy

ride along a winding road through the mountains.

Strung out along a 30 kilometre stretch of road are 17 small settlements,
housing over 2700 West Papuans, at the official

Iowara relocation camp at East Awin.

Between 1984 and 1986, more than 12,000 West Papuan asylum seekers crossed
into Papua New Guinea from the Indonesian province

of Papua – known as West Papua to the Melanesian nationalist movement
which has opposed Indonesian rule since the 1960s.

During the 1990s, some of these people accepted voluntary repatriation.
But today, more than twenty years later, there are

still thousands of West Papuans living in official and unofficial camps
along the border.

The Port Moresby office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, the UNHCR, is monitoring a “population of

concern” of over 8000 people in Papua New Guinea. On the latest available
figures, this includes 7627 refugees and another

198 asylum seekers whose cases are being processed. Half of this refugee
group are children under the age of 18. According to

UNHCR, by early 2005 there were 2677 West Papuans at the East Awin camp in
Western Province, 138 “stateless persons” in Daru,

Western Province, another 5400 people dispersed in five unofficial camps
along the border, and a handful of refugees in other

urban centres.

Indonesian rule

Since the 1962 New York Agreement and the 1969 Act of Free Choice (in
which Indonesia chose just 1022 leaders from a

population of 800,000 to decide on West Papua’s political status),
Indonesia has administered the western half of the island

of New Guinea as the province of Irian Jaya (renamed as Papua in January
2002). But there is widespread local opposition to

Indonesian rule from the pro-independence movement Organisasi Papua
Merdeka, or OPM, and churches, students, non-government

organisations and landowners’ associations.

Since the 1960s, West Papuans have sought refuge in Papua New Guinea in
response to outbreaks of conflict between the

Indonesian military and police, student and landowners groups, the
nationalist OPM movement, and guerrillas of the TPN, the

armed wing of the OPM.

The fall of the Suharto regime, independence in Timor Leste and the
creation of the pro-independence Papua Dewan Presidium in

June 2000 have increased the tension between the West Papuan nationalist
movement and the Indonesian military. The murder of

Presidium chair Theys Eluay in November 2001 symbolises the crackdown on
political dissent, and today there are ongoing human

rights violations by TNI military, BRIMOB police and militia forces.
Indonesia’s Special Autonomy Law for Papua has not been

implemented effectively and an upsurge of protest in 2006 has led to a
number of political activists and their families

fleeing the country.

This ongoing conflict raises sensitive issues for neighbouring states like
Australia and Papua New Guinea, whose governments

support the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia and oppose
the call for the independence of West Papua. The

presence of thousands of refugees in Papua New Guinea has largely faded
from international concern and scrutiny, but could

become a major problem if further clashes erupt.

Border crossers or refugees?

The island of New Guinea has a long and varied colonial history. Germany,
Britain, the Netherlands, Australia and Indonesia

have administered different parts of the island, which has over a thousand
language groups, since the nineteenth century.

The border that divides Indonesian-administered Papua and the independent
nation of Papua New Guinea, officially surveyed in

1967, traverses rugged and mountainous terrain. Beyond the coastal fringe
between Jayapura and Vanimo, the border is not

clearly distinguished except for occasional markers (during the 1990s,
patrolling Indonesian have crossed over the border

into PNG territory on dozens of occasions, sometimes in hot pursuit of OPM
guerrillas). In December 1979, PNG and Indonesia

signed an agreement establishing a Joint Border Committee. In August 1982,
the two countries signed a Memorandum of

Understanding on border security whereby Papua New Guinea and Indonesia
survey teams and military are allowed 20 kilometres

into each other’s territory. Today, there is increased PNG-Indonesia
cooperation on border issues, with regular meetings of

officials from the two countries.

Because the PNG government usually regards them as border crossers rather
than asylum seekers, West Papuans have difficulty

in being recognised as refugees. Many indigenous communities have land on
both sides of a frontier that is simply a line

drawn on the map, and there is a tradition of crossing back and forwards
for cultural and economic purposes, including

marriage, hunting, gardening and customary trade. Some West Papuans have
also fled temporarily into Papua New Guinea over the

past two decades because of Indonesian military operations against the
OPM, but soon return home without seeking the

protection of PNG government authorities or the UNHCR.

But many people arriving in Papua New Guinea refuse to return to their
homes because they fear persecution. The UNHCR does

not assume they are refugees, and says each case needs to be assessed
individually. After the 1984 influx of asylum seekers,

Papua New Guinea signed the 1951 Refugee Convention. Under the Convention,
the processing of refugee applications is the

responsibility of the PNG government, not the UNHCR, though the
international agency provides technical and financial

support.

But the PNG government placed significant reservations on its signature
and does not accept all the obligations detailed in

the Convention. They key phrase reads:
The Government of Papua New Guinea in accordance with article 42 paragraph
1 of the Convention makes a reservation with

respect to the provisions contained in articles 17 (1), 21, 22 (1), 26,
31, 32 and 34 of the Convention and does not accept

the obligations stipulated in these articles.

Thus the Papua New Guinea Government does not accept convention
obligations covering: wage-earning employment (Article 17),

housing (21), public education (22), freedom of movement (26), refugees
unlawfully in the country of refuge (31), expulsion

(32) and naturalisation (34).

After the influx of refugees in the mid-1980s, PNG authorities initially
charged people with illegal entry and repatriated

them. But there were pressures for greater acceptance of international
refugee law, and Papua New Guinea allowed the UNHCR to

establish an office in Port Moresby. The office was closed in 1996 due to
funding constraints, but reopened in 2003 to

encourage the establishment of a formal refugee protection framework in
Papua New Guinea and monitor further displacements

from Papua.

The UN office advises the PNG government on meeting its obligations under
the Refugee Convention and provides training in

refugee status determination procedures. UNHCR organises workshops for PNG
police, immigration and customs officers along the

border, outlining international law on asylum and appropriate standards of
treatment and detailing UNHCR’s mandate. In 2003,

UNHCR, the PNG government and other agencies developed contingency plans
based on three scenarios for mass arrival of West

Papuan asylum seekers, on a scale similar to 1984. These plans have also
been elaborated in the border areas with provincial

authorities in Sandaun (West Sepik) and Western provinces.

Residency and repatriation

The arrival of thousands of West Papuans in 1984 and 1985 stretched PNG
government resources to the limit, and raised new

political problems in the relationship between Port Moresby and Jakarta.
In September 1984 Papua New Guinea and Indonesia

signed an exchange of letters outlining the procedures to be followed by
both countries for the repatriation of ‘border

crossers’. Initially housed at 17 sites along the border, PNG authorities
began encouraging people to return home

voluntarily, but most refused to return and claimed refugee status.

Once it was clear that many of the asylum seekers wouldn’t accept
voluntary repatriation and with limited prospect of third

country resettlement, Papua New Guinea established the central relocation
settlement at East Awin, about 120 kilometres from

the border in Western Province. Numbers have ebbed and flowed since the
first refugees were relocated to the isolated camp

site in 1987, but today there are nearly 2700 West Papuans still living
there.

In 1996, Papua New Guinea established a system of permissive residency for
West Papuans at East Awin and began issuing

residency permits in 1999. More than 2500 of the original refugees have
been granted permissive residency by a PNG government

screening committee, allowing thems to enjoy rights similar to those of
PNG citizens. The latest group of 184 people were

granted residency in October 2005.

Permissive residency means the refugees can remain at East Awin or move to
another part of the country. They must stay away

from the border area and avoid any political activity, but are allowed to
engage in business activities, use health

facilities and enrol in schools and tertiary institutions. After eight
years of permissive residency, refugees can apply for

naturalisation.

In 2004, in a program supported by UNHCR, the PNG government issued birth
certificates to 1217 children born in East Awin and

other camps since the 1980s. (The children range in age from babies to
20-year-olds, which highlights the length of time some

West Papuans have been away from home.) The birth certificates now give
these children a legal identity in Papua New Guinea,

which assists them to access services such as school enrolment or opening
a bank account.

The Catholic Diocese of Daru-Kiunga provides health care services to the
refugees at East Awin and the Catholic Church in

Papua New Guinea has played a central role in providing humanitarian
support at the unofficial camps. Other groups, including

the Lutheran and SDA churches, PNG Red Cross, Save the Children (UK) and
private sector organisations have also contributed

to humanitarian support for the West Papuan refugees.

Despite this help, West Papuans living at East Awin are reliant on
subsistence agriculture, growing food on land in a narrow

strip along the road which runs through the camps at East Awin. Local
landowners from the Awin and Pare peoples have allowed

the refugees to hunt and garden in the allocated land, though there are
ongoing complaints that the PNG government has not

paid the full amount of compensation to landowners for granting 100,000
hectares of land.

The reluctance of third countries like Australia to take West Papuan
refugees also remains a stumbling block for those who

don’t want to settle in Papua New Guinea or return home. In 2000, 802 West
Papuans from East Awin were repatriated to

Indonesia under the auspices of the UNHCR. Although the PNG government has
a policy encouraging voluntary repatriation, many

West Papuan nationalists are concerned that the Indonesian government
should give formal guarantees for the returnees’

safety. They are also angered that key independence leaders from the OPM
have faced forcible repatriation.

Reviving the Pacific Solution

During the current crisis over Australia–Indonesia relations, the
Australian government has proposed amending the law to

allow detention centres on Nauru and Manus Island in Papua New Guinea –
created in 2001 for the ‘Pacific Solution’ – to

detain West Papuan asylum seekers.

When the detention centre was set up at Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island
on 21 October 2001 it was widely criticised by PNG

church and community leaders. They asked why Australia would spend tens of
millions of dollars on the Manus centre while

humanitarian agencies were using limited resources to support nearly 8000
West Papuan refugees and border crossers. In

October 2001, the Catholic Bishops Conference of Papua New Guinea and the
Solomon Islands stated:
The conference notes with amazement the haste with which Papua New Guinea
has been drawn into this Australian election issue.

Suddenly we have an Australia ready to support, with funds and
infrastructure, accommodation in Papua New Guinea for people

from far away. We ask why similar support has not been extended to assist
us with hosting our recently arrived Melanesian

refugees from Irian Jaya?

>From 2001, over $42 million was spent to establish and run the Manus
centre for less than 400 refugees. In July 2003, the

Manus detention centre was wound down, leaving one last remaining asylum
seeker, Aladdin Sisalem, who was imprisoned on Manus

by himself for another ten months at a cost of over $250,000 a month.

As Papua New Guinea is a signatory to the Refugee Convention, the
appropriate authorities to undertake refugee status

determination processing in the country are the local authorities. But the
processing of Pacific Solution asylum seekers on

Manus Island between 2001 and 2004 was conducted by Australian officials.
UNHCR refused to participate after expressing

serious reservations about the Australian policy of sending asylum seekers
to overseas countries. In 2002, the organisation

explicitly criticised Australia’s policy of offshore detention, stating:
“UNHCR is concerned about the detention of refugees

on Nauru and Manus Island. We consider such detention inconsistent with
the provisions of the Refugee Convention.”

Back to the past?

Without knowing it, the current proposal to revive Manus as a detention
centre echoes past history, for Manus played a

central role in the West Papua debate at the time of the 1969 Act of Free
Choice.

After Indonesian troops moved into Papua in 1963, hundreds of people per
year crossed over into the Australian-administered

territory of Papua and New Guinea. By the time of PNG’s independence in
1975, the total had reached around 4200 people, none

of whom – partly because of the White Australia policy – were allowed to
relocate to Australia. Most were repatriated by

Australian authorities after warnings about the penalty for illegal entry.
A small number of political activists were granted

permissive residence status by the Australian authorities, but only if
they committed themselves to avoiding political

activity during their stay in the territory. In late 1968, the Australian
administration moved 69 refugees from the north

coast towns of Vanimo and Wewak to offshore Manus Island to prevent them
from participating in anti-Indonesian politics in

the Territory of Papua and New Guinea.

In his book Refuge Australia, historian Klaus Neumann has documented
Australia’s refugee policies in pre-independence Papua

New Guinea. He notes that Australian officials were particularly reluctant
to reveal the reasons why particular refugees were

granted asylum to avoid offending the Indonesian authorities. A 1965
External Affairs memorandum pointed out that “The

government is willing to consider on their merits applications from
genuine political refugees... but this is more easily

done quietly and without publicity.” The Department of External Affairs
advised all diplomatic posts: “These grounds should

not be quoted, any questions being met with the reply that the man
concerned was regarded as having a genuine case for

admission.”

In 1969, at the request of Indonesia, Australian officials stopped two
pro-independence West Papuan leaders from travelling

to the United Nations, just weeks before the so-called Act of Free Choice.
The two political leaders from West Papua, Clemens

Runawery and Wilhelm Zongganao, were sent to New York from Jayapura
carrying testimonies from West Papuan leaders calling for

independence and petitions imploring the United Nations secretary general
to halt the UN-supervised vote on Dutch New

Guinea’s political status. Arriving in the Australian administered
territory of New Guinea en route to the United States, the

two West Papuan leaders were halted, questioned by ASIO officers, and then
held in detention on Manus Island. As the United

Nations stood back and allowed the sham consultation to proceed, their
voice could not be heard in New York.

Will Manus play a similar role as a new generation of West Papuans seek
international support? •

---

http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailnational.asp?fileid=20060502.D03&irec=4

Papua's 43rd anniversary draws a mixed crowd, and a new chief

Nethy Dharma Somba, The Jakarta Post, Jayapura

Around 500 people, consisting of freedom fighters, war veterans, and their
children and grandchildren commemorated Monday the

43rd anniversary of Papua's return from the Dutch government to Indonesia,
at the Cenderawasih Sports Hall in Jayapura.

A Papuan youth figure, Nico Maury, said the ceremony was organized to show
the world that not all Papuans wished for the

province to separate from Indonesia.

"We're in a democratic era now, and (it's normal that) some of our
brothers and sisters might wish for autonomy. But, we, the

sons and daughters of freedom fighters, are determined to secure Papua as
an integral part of the country," he told The

Jakarta Post. The ceremony was also attended by Papua caretaker Governor
Soadjuangon Situmorang, Papua Police Chief Insp.

Gen. Tommy Jacobus and Cenderawasih University Rector Bert Kambuaya.

According to Nico, the younger generation will defend what their parents
struggled for in the past.

A freedom fighter, Ramses Ohee, described May 1, 1965, as the day "Papua
returned to the folds of the motherland" after the

Dutch relegated its authority to Indonesia through the United Nations.

He said the ceremony was chiefly organized by freedom fighters who had
been saddened by the aspirations of those who wished

to leave Indonesia.

The highlight of the ceremony was the bestowal of an honorary title on
caretaker Governor Situmorang. He was made a Mamta

tribal chief, and given the name Kotelo Kabam Papua.

The extended Mamta tribe encompasses Jayapura mayoralty, and Keerom,
Jayapura and Sarmi regencies.

Mamta tribal chief Ramses Ohee presented Situmorang with a crown and hung
a tribal bag, a token of responsibility, around the

governor's neck. As a tribal chief, one of Situmorang's new duties is to
fight for the rights of Papuans in achieving

prosperity.

Situmorang considers the title an honor, and a sign that he is no longer
considered an outsider, but a native Papuan.

"They have accepted me wholeheartedly, now it's an emotional tie," he said.

He said that as a tribal chief of a major Papuan tribe, he needed to fight
for the welfare of Papuans. Situmorang's reign as

a chief will not be permanent, though - he will return to Jakarta after a
full governor is inaugurated in Papua.

---

 <http://nautilus.rmit.edu.au>
Austral Policy Forum 06-14A: Australia, Indonesia and the Papuan crises

- Richard Chauvel

Australia and Indonesia confront multi-faceted and interrelated crises in
Papua. [1] The bilateral relationship has been
placed under significant stress by the Australian decision to grant
temporary protection visas to 42 Papuan asylum

seekers. The asylum seekers arrived on Cape York in January 2006, pleading
for freedom, peace and justice, flying the
Papuan Morning Star flag and a banner claiming that the Indonesian
military was committing genocide in Papua. It
was a political act designed to attract Australian and international
attention to the struggle for Papuan
independence. The seeking of asylum, together with the shooting of three
Papuans in Paniai, numerous disturbances
around the Freeport mine and a riot in Abepura, in which five members of
the Indonesian security forces were killed,
are all incidents in the first three months of 2006 that show the depth of
political instability in Papua. Papuan
resistance and Indonesian repression remain the dominant characteristics
of Indonesian rule in the territory. But
the crises stemming from the Indonesian side of the equation are being
compounded by a remarkable combination
of Australian over-confidence about the solidity of its relations with the
Indonesian government, insouciance about
the extent and effects of Indonesian repression, and ignorance of
Australia's own historical role in Papua.
Moreover, Australia faces an even greater difficulty in dealing with the
dynamics of Indonesian policy in Papua,
where a promising policy of Special Autonomy supported by the president is
being opposed by an array of forces within
the Indonesian government headed by the military, intelligence agencies,
and the Ministry of the Interior.
Full text available @

<http://nautilus.rmit.edu.au/forum-reports/0614a-chauvel.html>

---

Vanuatu Government told it should have hard evidence before deporting Papuan

Posted at 08:23 on 02 May, 2006 UTC

The sister of Vanuatu Prime Minister Ham Lini says the government should
produce some hard evidence before it deports Papuan

activist Andy Ayamiseba.

Hilda Lini, who was the guest speaker at a ceremony in Port Vila to
commemorate the raising of the Papuan Morning Star flag,

criticised the government for not having a clear foreign policy on Papua.

She questions the government’s attempts to deport Mr Ayamiseba on the
grounds that he is a risk to national security.

Ms Lini says ni-Vanuatu are culturally linked to Papuans and will not
stand for a fellow-Melanesian being treated like this.
“If Andy has broken the law in Vanuatu then there’s a process of having to
put that through the court. At the moment Andy is

a stateless person - you don’t know where you will be sending him back to.
Because he doesn’t have residential permit of

citizenship in Australia, Indonesia, Holland or where ever, and he doesn’t
even have one in Vanuatu.”

Andy Ayamiseba’s appeal against his deportation order will be heard on May
22nd.

News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand


---

Andy’s deportation submission to Vanuatu Supreme Court awaiting decision

By Gabriel Vusi - The ni-Vanuatu
Posted Friday, March 3, 2006

The Supreme Court of Vanuatu has notified Solicitor General, Dudley Aru,
and lawyer Felix Laumae, from Trans Melanesian

Lawyers, after the hearings over the matter of, Andy Ayamiseba’s,
deportation on the 9th of February 2006 out from Vanuatu by

State Internal Affaires Minister, George Andrew Wells, that the final
determination over the matter would be given on the

30th of March 2006 at 4pm, at port Vila court house.

Justice Hamilson Bulu from the Supreme Court, said because of court busy
schedule and also the court needs more time to

carefully consider both submissions submitted by the claimant (Andy
Ayamiseba) represented by, Felix Laumae, and the

defendant (George Andrew Wells) who was represented by Solicitor General,
Dudley Aru, before the final determination.

The West Papuan activist, Andy Ayamiseba, has filed statements against his
deportation order, after returning to the country

on the 10th of February 2006 that had been refused by authorities
responsible to allow him through Solomon Islands and

Australia without proper documents. In his submission to court for
judicial review over the deportation order through, Felix

Laumae, requesting the Supreme Court of Vanuatu to “quash Andy Ayamiseba’s
deportation order, to prohibit Minister George

Wells, from deporting him out of Vanuatu again,” and for the government of
Vanuatu to pay charges for defamation when no

valid reasons proven for his deportation. The submission to court is to
challenge the deportation order constitutionally.

During the argument of the claimant before the court on February 22 & 23,
2006, Felix Laumae, told the court that the

decision for deporting, Andy Ayamiseba, by Minister George Wells,
unlawful, and solely based on political grounds and

speculation. Mr. Laumae, said no evidence by the claimant that could be
proven imminent treat to Public Security, Defence and

Public order. He said the claimant alleged Minister Wells has failed the
principles of Natural Justices, and questioned if

his move was in good faith and fairness. “Whatever laws passed, Natural
Justice should be there.” Laumae said Article 17 (a)

of the Immigration Act, which the Minister’s decision based at, does not
take away the Constitutional right under Article 5

of the Constitution of Vanuatu.

Felix Laumae, said the Minister has acted in unappropriated information by
First Political Advisers namely, George Bongiri,

from Prime Minister’s Office, and Joe Bongmal Carlo, from the Ministry of
Internal Affaires, and eight other people including

George Wells. He said all information provided by them in relation to
deportation order were all bias and faithless full of

opinion and political grounds, and has not proven imminent evidence as a
national treat to National Security, Defence and

Public Order. Mr. Laumae said if the court grants deportation order
lawful, it would be harder in practical sense for

investors be attracted to Vanuatu because any Minister for Internal
Affaires in future may abuse his power in accordance to

article17 (a) of the Immigration Act, to deport foreigners without notice,
and at the same time allows an open door for a

minister, based in his opinion, political grounds and speculation, may
remove non-citizens out from Vanuatu whether in this

government or in any future governments. This is for the first time
Article 17 of the Immigration Act has come to scrutiny.

Felix Laumae requested the court to grant the case of the claimant.

Meanwhile the defendant Solicitor General, Dudley Aru, said before the
court, additional statements were filed on the 15th

and 20th of February 2006 by ten officials from government ministries,
departments and government sections, identifying facts

of the involvement of the claimant in internal politics of Vanuatu. In
some of these statements read before court, the

claimant had involved lobbying with members of parliament to support the
motion of West Papua in Parliament session to pass,

but these lobby went beyond as far as lobbying with parliament members
over the motion of no confidence against the Prime

Minister of Vanuatu, Vanuaroroa Ham Lini, that could disturb the stability
of the national Government.

It also been said the claimant had applied to Police authority for a
demonstration to be held in port Vila to call the

Australian government to accept West Papuans to Australia. Acting Police
Commissioner Aurther Caulton, through his

professional capacity, Andy Ayamiseba, forced the authorities to follow
his interest (Public Order), according to Dudley Aru,

during defence proceedings in court. The defendant submission to court has
responded to each issue defending the Claimant

claim filed before court. The defendant said the order is lawful because
the claimant is a non-citizen and the order has been

properly processed and approved first by the Council of Ministers before
the minister took action to remove the claimant out

from the country. And also the Minister has the power to remove
non-citizen from Vanuatu without notice in accordance to

article 17 (a) of the Immigration Act. The order, which now challenged is
lawful and does not preached the constitution of

Vanuatu and the principles of Natural Justice as claimed by the Claimant.
Mr. Aru said the claimant claim filed before court

is for judicial review and not for constitutional review to deal with
articles inside the constitution, and said if the

claimant should file a different proceedings and this case should be
dismissed.

Despite these arguments, Ni-Vanuatu paper understands that there is a
wording-loophole on article 17 of the Immigration Act,

which amended in 2004, to “Prohibit” non-citizens, for involving in
activities that would disturb the National Security,

Defence and Public order in the republic of Vanuatu. The first prime
minister of Vanuatu, Walter Hyde Lini, had deported,

Andy Ayamiseba, at one time for involving in internal politics of Vanuatu.

---


Deportation dilemmas
27/02/2006

The internal affairs minister in Vanuatu, George Wells, tried to deport a
Free West Papuan independence activist a couple of

weeks ago. But he discovered that the man in question was very hard to get
rid of. Our Pacific correspondent, Sean Dorney,

was not surprised.

It's well over 20 years since I first met Andy Ayamiseba. Back in 1979,
when I was in the first year of my posting to Papua

New Guinea as the Australian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio Australia
correspondent in Port Moresby, Air Niugini invited the

then very popular Irian Jayan rock band, the Black Brothers, to do a tour
of PNG. Andy was their manager.

Andy's father, Dirk Samuel Ayamiseba, had been Chairman of the Regional
Peoples' Representative Assembly of Irian Jaya back

10 years prior to that, in 1969.

That was the year of the so called Act of Free Choice when just over one
thousand of the indigenous people of what is now the

Indonesian province of Papua voted on behalf of one million people against
Independence.

Dirk had been appointed by the Indonesian government to a team to
coordinate the United Nations supervised Act of Free Choice

but resigned when he discovered how it would be conducted.

In 1979, Dirk accompanied Andy and the Black Brothers to PNG and they all
sought asylum refusing to go back to Indonesia.

That's when I first met Andy. He, his father and the Black Brothers moved
to Holland.

In the early 1980s Father Walter Lini's government in Vanuatu invited the
Black Brothers to set themselves up in Port Vila

and that is where I ran into Andy next.

Father Lini was a great supporter of the West Papuan cause. However, by
the late 1980s the political situation in Vanuatu had

changed and the Black Brothers troop were asked to leave. Australia
accepted them all as refugees and they moved to Canberra.

In 1999, Andy Ayamiseba, who had become good friends with another
prominent Vanuatu politician, Serge Vohor, returned to

Vanuatu. Mr Vohor organised a Vanuatu diplomatic passport for him.

However, after Mr Vohor was removed as prime minister in a Vote of No
Confidence in late 2004, Mr Ayamiseba's possession of

this passport came under question. It was withdrawn last year. He has
applied for a residency permit but has not got one yet.

Mr Ayamiseba has a four year old boy whose citizenship is not under
question. He's a Ni-Vanuatu citizen like his mother. Both

of them were in the house the other week when the police came and took
Andy away to the airport for deportation.

However, within a day or so he was back with them in Port Vila. Both
Solomon Islands and Australia refused to accept him and

so he did a lengthy round trip from Port Vila to Honiara to Brisbane,
where he was not even allowed off the aircraft, and

back to Vila.

It is not the first time a deportation from Vanuatu has been thwarted.

The publisher of the Vanuatu Daily Post, Marc Neil-Jones, was thrown out
of Vanuatu at very short notice several year ago but

the correct procedure was not followed and the courts ordered he be
allowed to return.

The law has since been changed to make deportations easier and the
internal affairs minister, George Wells, is arguing that

he has the right to remove Mr Ayamiseba accusing him of getting involved
in local politics.

Mr Wells is annoyed with the Australian government arguing that Australia
had accepted Mr Ayamiseba as a refugee 15 years ago

and so it should have taken him back.

But, if I know Andy, he's going to be hard to shift.

---

Papua strains regional relationships
Dr Sidney Jones, International Crisis Group - 02/05/2006
http://abcasiapacific.com/news/viewpoints/s1628415.htm

Australia's decision to grant temporary protection visas to 42 Papuans
continues to strain ties between Australia and

Indonesia, with Indonesian officials describing the mood at recent high
level talks on the issue as 'cool'.

Dr Sidney Jones of the International Crisis Group explains why Indonesia
is taking the decision so badly, and sheds some

light on rumours about what is taking place in Papua province.
Why do you believe the Indonesian government has taken such a hard line,
putting relations with Australia at risk over 42

Papuan asylum seekers?


I think there are a lot of things going on in Indonesia right now, but one
of them is the Aceh peace process and I think

there may be many people in Australia that don't realise that Indonesia
has to take - or believes it has to take - a hard

line on Papua because of the rather soft line it's taken on Aceh, working
toward a peace process which is still very much on

track in Aceh. And it needs to show that it's taking a hard line so it
won't be accused of in any way selling out the

country. So Yudhoyono the president, has very heavy domestic constraints
on him. That's one factor.

Another factor is simply the trauma to the Indonesian psyche of the loss
of East Timor and the belief that Australians and

outside intervention were in some ways responsible for that. And they see
in some ways the granting of asylum to the Papuans

as being proof that Australia's interested in doing the same thing on
Papua. There's a real strong perception that comes from

the loss of East Timor.

Let's take those two things separately and start with the Acehnese
argument. It doesn't really make sense, does it? If you

think about it, the agreement over Acehnese autonomy seems to be working,
seems to be creating peace. Why wouldn't you simply

repeat that experiment in Papua and try to create peace there as well?


Because right now we have several political forces in Jakarta. We have the
president and the vice president who are very much

committed to the peace process. We have a rather unruly group of
parliamentarians who believe they were excluded from the

negotiations in Helsinki that led to the [Aceh] peace process and are now
taking a law that will basically enshrine the

principles of that Helsinki agreement in law and are using this as an
example to say: "Look, you've got to listen to us."

And in order to make sure that they can keep those parliamentarians on
track to get a good result out of that process, the

president and vice president almost have to take an ultra-nationalist
position somewhere else in Indonesia and it happens to

be Papua because that's where they have an opportunity to do this. It's
also the case, I should add, that there are a lot of

other local political interests involved in stirring up Papua.

This paranoia about Australia wanting to support independence for Papua
doesn't seem to make sense, when you look at the

public statements, repeated public statements coming out of Australian
politicians, that they respect Indonesia's territorial

sovereignty over that region?


I know, it doesn't seem to make sense on the surface, but also I think
it's important to remember that you do have a lot of

very outspoken advocacy groups in Australia. The perception of Indonesia
is that for 23 years or so, Australia repeatedly

said it would support the territorial integrity of Indonesia, including
sovereignty over East Timor. And then overnight it

changed just like that, and they're afraid that overnight no matter what
the [Australian] government says about respect for

territorial integrity, that because of the pressure, domestically in
Australia, policy can change overnight just like that on

Papua. That's the fear and that's the paranoia.

But are they not sophisticated enough to realise that Australia couldn't
change its position without creating this immense

rift with Indonesia, which they're not about to do?


I think that we're dealing with genuine fears on the part of many in the
Indonesian political elite that there are these

intentions and that foreign powers - not only Australia, but in some cases
the United States and others - are out to weaken

Indonesia and to wrest Papua from the body of this country. So I think
some of the fears are genuine. Some of the fears are

almost designed to cater to domestic political interests again. But I
think they are genuine.

Indonesia's withdrawn ambassador to Australia has blamed Australian church
groups for promoting independence within Papua.

What do you know of the activities of church groups in the province?


I don't know of any, of specific activities of the churches. But I do
think there's a belief in Indonesia that the asylum

seekers were granted temporary stay because of the Australian immigration
bureau's accepting the claims that genocide had

taken place in Papua. And, in fact, one of the characteristics of the
Yudhoyono government has been to ease up on the actions

of security forces in Papua.

So the idea - there's a perception that I think is held in Australia, but
it's certainly a perception that the Indonesians

have of Australian perceptions - that there's genocide, mass killings,
militia activity and so on going on now in Papua. And

it's simply not true.

It doesn't have to be genocide, does it? It could simply be a well-founded
fear of persecution. Do you believe those 42

asylum seekers have well-founded fears?


I'm sure some of them do have well-founded fears of persecution. But I
think in the Indonesian press the reason that the

asylum seekers were granted the temporary stay was described as an
acceptance on the part of the Australian government of the

genocide claims, and that perception needs to be disabused. That's how
it's been reported here.

Let's talk about other things that have been reported. For example, on the
basis of a leaked Indonesian military document,

it's been suggested that the military had a specific plan hatched in June
of 2000 to target human rights defenders and

independence leaders. Is that still happening?


I don't think it's still happening, but it was an accurate document, I
believe. And shortly after that document was leaked,

there was the murder of a leading independence figure named Theys Eluay.
That more than anything else galvanised and

independence movement. That was in November 2001. There were a few very
low-ranking army special forces officers who were

prosecuted and given really minor sentences, and then one of the chief
army officers at the time called them heroes, and that

really aggravated the whole situation in Papua.

So yes, the document I believe was real. Yes, there was a murder that was
directly attributed to it. I don't believe that

there is a plan now, or any evidence that the army or special forces or
intelligence are systematically going after

independence activists for assassination.

There is evidence, though, of first-hand accounts of brutality against
student activists, severe beatings and some killings,

not only against OPM (Free Papua Movement) rebels. Who do you think at
this stage the Indonesian military actually fears more

- the educated demonstrators who are seeking independence, or the OPM rebels?


I think probably there's a greater fear of the educated independence
movement. But I think when you talk about the brutality

- and there's no question there has been brutality - it's important to
remember that in the cases where we've seen students

getting beaten up, it's been preceded by attacks on security forces.

So one of the major cases that's called the Abepura case that took place
in 2000 involved first the killing of two police

officers and then this rampage by the police in retaliation. Yes, very
severe brutality, but caused initially by violence

against police. And then this big demonstration that happened on 16 March
at the university, all the people killed were

either police, and in one case, an air force intelligence officer. No one
killed on the civilian side. So I think things have

to be kept in balance as well.

A report by a team from Sydney University titled 'Genocide in West Papua'
is one of the things that seems to have raised the

temperature in Jakarta. It includes accounts of local informants saying
that militia groups are forming in transmigrant

communities. Is there any evidence that you know of that that is happening?


None. I think in 2000, there was evidence of something called the Satgas
Merah Putih - that is the Red and White Task Force -

that was supported by the military and this was at a time when there were
also militia groups being formed on the independent

side to guard a big forum that took place there, a Papuan People's
Congress. That was in 2000.

Since then, there have been lots of reports of Muslim militias of Laskar
Jihad forming in Papua and so on. If anybody has any

evidence that such groups exist I would like to see it, because there
hasn't been any evidence coming forward that I have

seen. And I've looked for it in the last two years.

There's certainly been reports from OPM rebel leaders that that is
actually happening


Yeah, and I think you have to take reports from OPM rebel leaders with the
same scepticism you take reports from TNI leaders.

I think both sides have an interest in putting forward what may be a
biased perspective.

---


Radio New Zealand International
http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=23786
The Voice of New Zealand, Broadcasting to the Pacific

Te Reo Irirangi O Aotearoa, O Te Moana-Nui-A-Kiwa

Accessibility Information

My RNZI

Go to Site Menu
Australian Immigration Minister’s Papua nationalism comments "despicable"
say Greens

Posted at 07:09 on 01 May, 2006 UTC

Australia’s Green Party has described comments by the Immigration Minister
that Papuan nationalism in Indonesia is racist as

despicable.

Minister Amanda Vanstone wrote in the weekend Australian newspaper that
Papuan nationalism in Indonesia is a "racist

sentiment" based on hostility to people from other parts of Indonesia.

Senator Vanstone says that separatism is a toxic cause that could, if
encouraged, result in chaos, death and suffering on

Australia’s doorstop.

However Greens Senator Kerry Nettle says that Senator Vanstone trying to
argue that Melanesians aren’t a distinct people to

Indonesians is disappointing...

    “Yeah and that’s why I think that the Minister’s argument is such a
hard argument to run. Everyone recognises when you

look at a West Papuan and then you look at an Indonesian, it’s so obvious
to the eye. I think the argument is just not

tenable, I don’t think that people will respect her attempts to put that
argument forward because it’s so obviously wrong.”

Kerry Nettle says that the Minister’s comments that pro-Papuan support
equates to Anti-Indonesian sentiment shows a lack of

understanding and leadership from someone in her position

---

Norway Voices Concern About Papua Press Ban
Norwegian official says Indonesia should allow the international media to
visit area of alleged human rights abuses.
By Jakob Holm
http://www.scandasia.com/viewNews.php?news_id=2359&coun_code=id


During a Human Rights dialogue last held in Jakarta on the 27th of April,
Norway’s Foreign Ministry's State Secretary aired

his concern about Indonesia keeping the media from visiting Papua province.
Indonesia should not bar the international community and media from
visiting Papua to counter one-sided reporting on alleged

human rights abuses in the resource-rich province,” the Norwegian Foreign
Ministry's State Secretary Kjetil Skogrand said

during the fifth bilateral dialogue on Human Rights between Norway and
Indonesia.
Indonesia has been accused of committing human rights violations in Papua
by several international human rights groups and

individuals. Jakarta has repeatedly denied such accusations, saying that
some international groups and elements of society in

several countries want to see Papua separated from Indonesia like the new
state Timor Leste.
In an effort to curb foreign interference in Papuan affairs, the
government has limited the entry of foreigners to the

province, the scene of a sporadic and low-level separatist revolt.
“There might be reasons for concern about the situation in Papua. However,
as long as the international press is not allowed

to visit the area, it is difficult to assess the situation,” the Norwegian
state secretary told The Jakarta Post during the

Norway-Indonesia dialog.
Skogrand said that he would like to see the possibility of the
international community and international press visiting Papua

to assess the situation.
But the Norwegian official was not all criticism. The Papua issue aside,
Skogrand praised Indonesia for having made much

progress in upholding human rights principles.


 	Created 2006-05-02

---


Papua a dilemma for RI, Australia
Sudirman Nasir, Melbourne
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detaileditorial.asp?fileid=20060503.F01&irec=1

It is neither easy nor comfortable to talk about Papua, especially if you
are an Indonesian who is currently living in

Australia. That's not simply because of the strained relations between the
two countries after Australia granted temporary

visas to 42 Papuans. Indeed it's mostly because of common ignorance of the
detailed history of Papua among Indonesian youths,

including myself, particularly the history of human rights violations in
the province.

For me it's even more difficult since I have never been to Papua at all.
The distance and of course the high cost of

traveling from my home city of Makassar in South Sulawesi to Papua have
prevented me from visiting the land of Cendrawasih

(the bird of paradise).

I joked with one of my Australian friends in Melbourne who asked my
opinion on the situation in Papua. When she asked me why

I had never been in the province, I asked her why she had never been to
Darwin.

Jokes are a useful icebreaker when discussing sensitive topics.

Like many other Australians, she strongly supports the decision to grant
protection visas to the Papuans, saying she believes

they genuinely face a severe threat of human rights abuses at home. For
the first time since I met her, she praised Prime

Minister John Howard. Like many students and lecturers in the university,
she never identifies herself as a Coalition

(Liberal and National Party) supporter.

The biggest difficulty in arguing about the validity of human rights
violations in fragile provinces like Papua, Aceh and

East Timor (when the province was still under Indonesia's control) is the
fact that for a long time Soeharto's New Order

government monopolized access to information there. One of my Papuan
friends once told me we were part of a blind generation

during Soeharto's era.

In the case of East Timor, for instance, many members of my generation
were surprised when we read The Eyewitness, an

anthology of short stories written by prominent author Seno Gumira
Ajidarma. It poignantly describes the brutal experiences

of people in an unnamed place during occupation by unknown foreign
soldiers. Later we found out that Ajidarma based his work

on East Timor, and the foreign solders he described were based on the
Indonesian Army.

During Soeharto's era it was impossible to report the brutality. It's no
wonder if many of my generation trusted the

credibility of people like Ajidarma more than that of government officials.

The human rights violations in East Timor were not so different from the
cases in Aceh and Papua. Many of us who have the

privilege of accessing various human rights reports from those areas are
surprised by how ignorant we were about the

sufferings of our fellow Indonesian citizens in the provinces. I met
several Acehnese and Papuans in exile in Australia, and

for me their exile status explains many things.

If a person or a group of people decide to leave their homeland and are
uncertain about when they will return home, they must

be driven by very strong reasons. So let us imagine how the 43 Papuans
sailed through the Arafura Sea on a frail boat to

Australia without any certainty about they could go home. It must be far
from an easy decision.

My Australian friend's question about whether the Indonesian government
can be trusted to guarantee the safety of the Papuans

if they return to their homeland is very difficult to answer too. How can
we make sure they will be free from threats and

abuses after witnessing the brutal attitude of many soldiers and police
officers? My answer was, "I don't know".

Ironically, she also said "I don't know" when she answered my question
about the future of Australia's indigenous people, the

Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. She blamed her government's
policies which structurally and culturally discriminate

against them.

We finally concluded that Papua would remain a dilemma for Indonesia and
Australia. As long as the Indonesian government

makes no significant changes to its policies in order to increase the
welfare of the Papuans, including ending human rights

abuses, they have valid reasons to resist and to seek political asylum
from other countries, especially Australia.

It is also apparent that the Australian government is facing a dilemma in
dealing with asylum seekers from Papua. On the one

hand, many Australians will pressure their government to accept these
Papuan asylum seekers. On the other hand this will

strain ties with Indonesia, their very close neighbor to the north.

Howard eloquently revealed the dilemma he was facing when he warned
Papuans against pursuing independence from Indonesia, as

"they may be going to end up with a lot more human rights abuses and
deprivation of liberty than would otherwise be the

case." (The Age, April 8). It is apparent that my Australian friend was
disappointed with Howard once again.

The writer is currently studying at the University of Melbourne.

---

Papua needs support
Papua's autonomy should be encouraged and the military curbed, writes Greg
Poulgrain

May 01, 2006

THE arrival in Australia of 43 refugees from Merauke caused a tidal wave
of protest from Jakarta, denying that Papuans are

suffering persecution, let alone genocide.



Yet there is no explanation why the Indonesian military (or TNI) needs
50,000 troops in Papua or what the army has been doing

in Papua for the past 43 years.

One Indonesian spokesman from the embassy in Canberra actually declared no
human rights infringements have occurred in Papua

since the end of the Suharto presidency, contradicting the Indonesian
Minister of Defence, Juwono Sudarsono, who publicly

acknowledged the army's failure in human rights.

Although US-trained, the Indonesian embassy spokesman seemed unaware of
the annual US State Department reports on Indonesia.

Two years ago, the report drew attention to Papua where murder, rape and
torture occurred at the hands of Indonesian security

forces, in particular the special forces known as Kopassus.

These same hands on a November night in 2001 strangled Papuan leader Theys
Eluay; and killed more than 200 Papuans in Biak in

July 1998, thrown overboard at sea from two Indonesian Navy frigates. Some
female corpses, mutilated with wrists still bound,

washed ashore.

Juwono Sudarsono has commented on the almost impossible task of reform.

In reality the TNI is a huge business empire spread across Indonesia,
partly legal but mostly illicit according to a Jakarta

think-tank in 2002.

Only 30 per cent of its budget is from government sources while most of
the remainder comes from illegal logging, mining,

extortion, prostitution, gambling and the illegal trafficking of women,
animals and drugs.

A two-year time-limit (established last April) for handing over army
businesses to the Government started with some army

foundations but soon lost impetus. And that's just the legal businesses.

With only hours to go before the end of the Megawati presidency two years
ago, a Bill was passed that secured future

political power for the TNI.

It centred on the territorial command structure which ensures an army
presence in the most remote locations down to village

level. This was the device that gave president Suharto ultimate control
throughout the archipelago.

The Indonesian Parliament in October 2004 failed to limit the power of the
TNI in Indonesian society, and from the time

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) assumed office, he has been fighting an
uphill battle to reform the army.

In Papua, continuation of territorial command is crucial for the TNI
because it allows the army to interfere, undermine,

bribe and coerce local bureaucrats, businessmen and politicians.

In Papua, the Special Autonomy Bill promised to rejuvenate Papuan society
with 70-80 per cent of the tax revenue from mining,

oil, gas, timber and fishing industries. Hence, some observers believe,
the TNI strategy of undermining special autonomy.

This strategy has left most Papuans disillusioned without realising
special autonomy is the door to modernity.

If properly implemented, this would bring an end to decades of brutality
at the hands of the TNI. Without international

support to implement this crucial autonomy Bill, and assist with on-site
training in issues of governance without domination

by Jakarta and TNI, there will only be more repression.

Events in 1977 when the TNI first moved into the highlands are a stark
reminder. For three months, Indonesian warplanes, each

equipped with six machineguns, strafed and bombed Papuans in their
villages and gardens.

More than 20,000 were killed, according to a Dutch medical doctor there at
the time.

But only two years ago, 12,000 Papuan village people fled into the
mountains after the TNI burnt their houses and killed

their livestock. Hundreds died.

The TNI reform that started after Suharto's resignation in 1998 stopped
when the war on terror arrived with the first Bali

bombing.

During the reformist presidency of Abdul Rahman Wahid six years ago, the
TNI fomented instability in various places across

the archipelago.

In the Indonesian context, Western preoccupation with the war on terror
has resulted in renewal of support for the TNI and

access to specialist training in the US and Australia.

Replanting democracy in the political landscape of Indonesia, after the
despotic regime of Suharto swept away democratic

institutions, is a Herculean task facing the Indonesian president SBY.

Talk of a transition, in the future, when TNI steps back from power and
democracy takes hold, is palaver fed to a Western

audience.

Because the army is still so dominant at this stage of Indonesia's
fledgling democracy, it is already influencing – some

might say corrupting – the democratic process so that army power is not
divested but consolidated.

Sudarsono said that even after the widely heralded democratic presidential
election in Indonesia that brought SBY to the

presidency, the military retains the real levers of power. The military,
he said, remains the fulcrum, largely unaccountable

to the civilian leadership in Jakarta.

SBY wants to solve the Papua problem by promoting special autonomy, which
is what Washington and Canberra also espouse.

Supporting the TNI, however, is undermining both SBY and his policy.

Unless Canberra is able to offer more than hot-air support for special
autonomy in Papua, SBY's position will weaken

considerably, and with him the dream of democracy in Indonesia.

Papuan refugees to Australia and to neighbouring Papua New Guinea will not
stop until the TNI releases its stranglehold on

Papua.

Greg Poulgrain is a Brisbane-based academic and expert on Indonesia

---