[Kabar-Irian] News: Dec 2006 - Jan 31 2007
Admin-Editors Kabar-Irian
editors at kabar-irian.com
Wed Jan 31 00:12:36 MST 2007
Dec - Jan 31 2007
KABAR IRIAN NEWS
We again apologize for the lack of news. We believe the situation has been
rectified and we are returning
to normal.
Up to Jan 31
TOPICS
* Papuan tribal war tradition becomes tourism attraction
* Two killed in clash in Indonesia's Papua province
* Mining of ancient herbal text leads to potential new anti-bacterial drug
* Media Release: Plea for New Zealand to promote peace dialogue for West
Papua
* THE WEST PAPUA REPORT
* Special Report: West Papua
* HERLINA, SOVIET SUBMARINES AND DR. SOUMOKIL
* FREE WEST PAPUA CAMPAIGN (multiple items including GBR HOP debate)
* Indonesian Police Accuse West Papuan Clergy of Being Members of the West
Papua Guerrilla Army
* Security treaty between Indonesian & Australia
* THE 8TH DECEMBER 2006 INCIDENT IN PUNCAK KUMIPAGA
* The Christmas Military Offensive and Humanitarian Crisis in Pucak Jaya,
West Papua
* Peace Brigades International (PBI) Indonesia Project Positions Available:
* West Papuan clergy seek resolution to humanitarian crisis in Puncak Jaya
* Oppression in West Papua continues
* American Samoa’s congressman wants Papua’s Act of Free Choice investigated
* West Papua: Fishing Dispute & Marind HR Abuse
* Various comments and advertisments pertaining to Papua
* Moderate quake shakes Indonesia's Papua
* Two earthquakes hit Indonesia's Papua
* Australian groups condemn Papua repression
* Human rights group says fishing company staff have attacked 14 Papuan
people defending traditional
fishing area
* Massive Indonesian Navy Exercise in West Papua
* West Papua: Indonesian Police Accuse Clergy
* Swiss-Belhotel Papua - history in the making
* West Papua: Plea for New Zealand to Promote Peace Dialogue
* Fishermen 'tortured, killed'
* Thousands of Papuans displaced, say clergy
* Indonesia: Up to 5,000 Papuans displaced by military operation in
central highlands
* On the Trail of the Walking Shark
* TV ads urge Govt to change Indonesian treaty
* Freeport-McMoRan: An Old Dog Barks / Not So FAST
* Govt decides to import another 250,000 tons of sugar
* Timika foundation helps tribespeople fight injustice`
* Terrorism, the mad child of oppression
* The nature conservacy extending its program coverage
* Indonesia : Restore traditional embroideries!
* Selective justice
* Imagined Journeys
* Genting to invest US$3b in Indonesian biofuel plants
* Biofuel projects worth Dollars 5.5bn in two remote provinces
* Timika to develop human resources
* Hush-Hush Money
* Scientists aim to save lesser-known mammals from extinction
* New head of Asia panel in U.S. Congress champions self-determination for
Papua
---
Kompas Dec 06
Papuan tribal war tradition becomes tourism attraction
The Dani tribe in Mimika regency, Papua, has begun the task of
transforming the tribal warfare that has long been part of indigenous
life into a ritual attraction for tourists.
Tribal warfare would be developed into a performance aimed at improving
the welfare of tribal communities, as well as educating them on the
detrimental impacts of conflict.
The concept was given a trial run on Nov. 29, at celebrations marking
the second anniversary of the 754th Infantry Battalion.
The show highlighted a fictional clash between the 'Wenda and Kogoya
clans.
The story starts when a young man from the Wenda clan flees with a woman
from the Kogoya clan, violating Kogoya customs.
It turns out that the man has married her withput going through the
customary rite of paying dowry to the Kogoya clan.
The Kogoya family reports the matter to. the main tribal chief, who
summons the Wenda family
The chief gathers both clans in a honai, the traditional Dani home, and
is able to strike a deal. The Kogoya clan wins dowry from the Wenda clan
in the form of Rp 50 million (about US$5,550) in cash, plus 50 pigs.
During the meeting, the Wenda family agrees to the arrangement. However,
on the day of payment, the Wenda clan declines to comply.
'The Wenda family offers only 25 pigs. The Kogoya family refuses to
accept them, and reports the matter to the chief again.
The Kogoya clan is outraged and offended, and through the chief,
threatens to abduct a girl from the Wenda clan. The Wenda clan
disregards the threat.
The Wenda clan approaches the Kogoya tribal chief along with 25 pigs and
insists that the tribal chief persuade the Kogoya family to accept them.
The Kogoya clan refuses the payment and beats the war drum.
They make the first attack, shooting a member of the Wenda family to
death with a bow and arrow.
Enraged by the death, the Wenda clan retaliates, and during the ensuing
battle, two members of the Kogoya clan die. The Kogoya clan then gathers
and carries out a plan to avenge the deaths.
The tribal war ends when the main tribal chief is able to persuade the
war chiefs to restrain themselves and honor peace efforts.
Both warring tribes agree to break an arrow to signify an end to
hostilities. Each party slaughters pigs for a peace ceremony, while
waiting for the'payment of the traditional fines they have agreed on.
The tribal war performance featured traditional clothes and weapons such
as bows and arrows, machetes, and spears. It received an enthusiastic
round of applause from members of the 745th Infantry Battalion, who
filled the field.
Battalion commander Lt. Col. Mirza Agus told reporters that the main
purpose of the tribal war simulation was to urge tribal communities to
change the pattern of savage warfare into an artistic performance that
could benefit local people and win over the public.
The number of victims in real tribal wars has raised serious concerns
and prompted calls to find better ways of resolving disputes.
Peace negotiations mediated by traditional and religious leaders,
including the government, have often failed to cut off the cycle of
vengeance between warring parties.
---
http://in.news.yahoo.com/061209/137/6a5jw.html
Two killed in clash in Indonesia's Papua province
By Reuters
Saturday December 9, 02:40 PM
JAKARTA (Reuters) - Two people including an Indonesian military officer
were killed in a clash between
security forces and separatists in the remote eastern province of Papua, a
military official said on
Saturday.
The clash occurred on Friday after the officer and some residents tried to
enter a separatist camp in
Puncak Jaya regency, about 325 km southwest of Jayapura, the capital of
Papua, Imam Santosa told
Reuters.
No other details were available.
Papuan independence activists have waged a campaign for more than 30 years
to break away from
Indonesia while a low-level armed rebellion has also simmered for decades.
Human rights groups have accused the Indonesian military of widespread
abuses in Papua.
Critics say grievances among Papuans stem from such abuses and from
dissatisfaction over Jakarta's
distribution of wealth generated by the province, rich in gold and natural
gas.
Jakarta took over Papua from Dutch colonial rule in 1963. In 1969 its rule
was formalised in a vote by
community leaders which was widely criticised as political theatre.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said last August he wanted to end
conflict in Papua after the
signing of a peace accord with rebels from Aceh province, Indonesia's
other separatist region in the
country's far northwest.
---
http://www.physorg.com/news86591155.html
Mining of ancient herbal text leads to potential new anti-bacterial drug
A unique Mayo Clinic collaboration has revived the healing wisdom of
Pacific Island cultures by testing a
therapeutic plant extract described in a 17th century Dutch herbal text
for its anti-bacterial properties.
Early results show that extracts from the Atun tree effectively control
bacteria that can cause diarrhea, as
claimed by naturalist Georg Eberhard Rumpf, circa 1650. He documented his
traditional healing methods
in the book Ambonese Herbal.
The Mayo Clinic-led team's report appears in the Dec. 23 edition of The
British Medical Journal. In their
report, Mayo Clinic researchers demonstrate the feasibility of using
sophisticated data mining techniques
on historical texts to identify new drugs.
The study provides a creative new model for drug discovery. It integrates
nontraditional, ancient medical
information with advanced technologies to identify promising natural
products to investigate as drugs for
new and better therapies.
"Natural products are invaluable sources of healing agents -- consider,
for example, that aspirin derived
originally from willow bark, and the molecular basis of the anti-cancer
chemotherapeutic agent TaxolTM
was derived from the bark of the Pacific yew tree. So it's not so
far-fetched to think that the contributions
of an ancient text and insights from traditional medicine really may
impact modern public health," explains
Brent Bauer, M.D., director of the Mayo Clinic Complementary and
Integrative Medicine Program.
For thousands of years, people around the world have lived intimately with
botanical healing agents and
evolved effective healing traditions. "Our work shows just how much we can
learn from them. But to make
the most of what is fast becoming lost knowledge, we have to respect,
preserve and work with traditional
healing cultures," adds Eric Buenz, Ph.D., researcher for Minnesota-based
BioSciential, LLC.
Rumpf referred to himself as Rumphius, in the Latinized scientific manner
of the day. Rumphius was a
German-born naturalist who worked for the Dutch East Indies Company. His
book is an account of the
herbal healing traditions on the Indonesian island of Ambon. Rumphius'
description of Atun kernels'
therapeutic properties is what modern medicine calls "antimotility
agents," they stop diarrhea. Writes
Rumphius: "... these same kernels ... will halt all kinds of diarrhea, but
very suddenly, forcefully and
powerfully, so that one should use them with care in dysentery cases,
because that illness or affliction
should not be halted too quickly; and some considered this medicament a
great secret, and relied on it
completely."
Source: Mayo Clinic
---
Indonesia Human Rights Committee
Box 68-419,
Auckland
2 January, 2007
Media Release: Plea for New Zealand to promote peace dialogue for West Papua
The Indonesia Human Rights Committee is calling on the New Zealand
Government to offer to facilitate
dialogue between West Papuan representatives and the Government of
Indonesia. New Zealand should
also call on Indonesia to open up West Papua to the entry of human rights
monitors and international
media.
IHRC makes this urgent call in the context of rising tension and fears of
violent conflict in the remote
Highlands area of Puncak Jaya.
"When the West Papuan people demonstrate their desire for freedom and
raise the banned Morning Star
flag the Indonesian Government sends in more crack troops. West Papuan
leaders are calling for
dialogue but Indonesia fails to respond. New Zealand could be a catalyst
for peaceful change, but there
is little time for delay as the situation appears to be deteriorating
rapidly."
For further information: Maire Leadbeater 09-815-9000 or 0274-436-95
Indonesia Human Rights Committee
PO Box 68419
Auckland
Hon Trevor Mallard,
Duty Minister,
Parliament Buildings,
Wellington
Rt Hon Winston Peters,
Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Parliament Buildings,
Wellington.
2 January, 2007.
Dear Ministers,
The Indonesia Human Rights Committee is deeply concerned about the many
recent reports of rising
tension and military deployments in the Puncak Jaya region of West Papua.
We understand that several thousand extra troops from the Indonesian Army
(TNI) were sent to Bolakme,
West of Wamena near Mulia in December in response to flag-raising
incidents and the killing of two army
sergeants (Joko Susanto and Tobias Sirken) on 9 December. One report
claims that some of the troops
were flown into the area by helicopters supplied by Freeport-Indonesia,
the company which operates the
highly profitable copper-and-gold mine at Timika, close to the troubled
Puncak Jaya region.
We are especially concerned about the reported statement made by the
military commander, Marshall
Djoko Suyanto on 12 December 2006 as he announced the new deployment, to
the effect that human
rights should not be made an issue. This would appear to give the soldiers
a carte blanche to act as they
please towards the local population.
While some reports suggest that the soldiers were killed by members of a
local unit of the OPM (Free
Papua Movement) other local observers doubt that this is the case. The
Reverend Socratez Sofyan
Yoman, head of the Baptist churches in Papua who visited New Zealand a few
months ago, believes that
the tragic deaths did not take place at the hands of OPM members of the
Goliat Tabuni tribe. Instead he
fears that the deaths are being used to justify a troop build-up and to
support the establishment of a new
province in the Highlands.
In the town of Mulia, members of the army have reportedly been checking
the identity cards of all Papuan
inhabitants. These so-called 'sweepings' have had the effect of
intimidating people and disrupting day-to-
day activities in the markets, shops and offices.
We are also concerned about the repressive actions of the Jayapura police
who forcibly occupied the
Synod Office of the Kingmi Church injuring two clergy, Rev. Seblum
Karubaba and Rev. Noakh Nawipa,
in the process. The occupation ended after a peaceful protest
demonstration of some 400 members of
the church and Papuan students outside the Church Synod Office in Jayapura
on 30th of December
2006.
The Indonesian police have since made claims which apparently implicate
the Church with being involved
with the OPM and even suggest that two members of the Kingmi clergy were
involved in the armed attack
which resulted in the deaths of one Indonesian and two US teachers in
August 2002.
This build up of tensions takes place in the context of an ongoing steady
influx of migrants from Indonesia.
The population balance is now such that the indigenous Papuans fear the
prospect that they may become
a minority in their own land. The trade and commercial activities are
largely in the hands of migrants and
Papuans see themselves pushed to the fringes of society. The Indonesian
government has also pressed
ahead with the partition of West Papua, in violation of the Special
Autonomy Law introduced in 2001. At
present, West Papua has already been divided into two provinces, Papua and
Irian Jaya Barat, while
there are reports that a third province is due to be created in the far
western region of Papua early next
year.
Papuan leaders of all sectors have been calling for their homeland to
become a Land of Peace, and have
rejected the use of violence to achieve the political aim of a free West
Papua. They ask for dialogue with
the Indonesian government to work towards a peaceful resolution of the
current conflict and the many
problems that beset West Papua, but President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
has never responded to this
call.
We urge you to appeal to the Indonesian Government for the immediate
withdrawal of troops from Mulia
and the surrounding area and the cessation of all military operations,
including an end to sweepings
among the civilian population. The Indonesian Government should now
permit independent observers to
enter the area to investigate recent incidents, including the killing of
the Indonesian soldiers.
New Zealand should call for free access to West Papua for media
representatives, for UN human rights
monitors and for international humanitarian aid workers.
We also advocate that New Zealand should offer to facilitate a process of
dialogue between the
Indonesian Government and the recognised representatives of the Papuan
people including Church
leaders, representatives from the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP), OPM and
tribal leaders.
We believe that New Zealand's past experience with facilitating dialogue
between Bougainvillian and
Papua New Guinea Government representatives should help to ensure a
successful outcome to such a
dialogue. This is the least we should do for our West Papuan neighbours.
Yours sincerely,
Maire Leadbeater
(for the Indonesia Human Rights Committee)
---
Subject: January 2007 -- West Papua Report
THE WEST PAPUA REPORT
January 2007
This is the 32nd in a series of monthly reports that focuses on
developments affecting Papuans. This reporting series is produced by
the West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) drawing on media accounts, other
NGO assessments and analysis and reporting from sources within West
Papua.
The West Papua Advocacy Team is a non-profit organization.
Questions regarding this report can be addressed to Edmund
McWilliams at edmcw at msn.com
SUMMARY: Multiple reports indicate a new offensive in West Papua's
highland district of Punjak Jaya is getting underway. A similar
campaign in the same area in 2004-2006 displaced thousands of
civilians, left villages destroyed and led to the death of scores of
civilians. Jakarta authorities have seized the central offices of
the second largest church in West Papua, injuring two Pastors. The
assault in late December appears to have been signaled by senior
Indonesian Defense officials who earlier in 2006 alleged without
evidence that church leaders were linked to the small
pro-independence movement in West Papua. Church leaders have refuted
the charge. Pressure continues to build on the massive
Freeport-McMoran mine operation in West Papua as major shareholders
press for an environmental and human rights accounting of its
practices. In commentary, the Report considers whether the
Aceh-Jakarta peace agreement, which led to successful,
democraticelections in Aceh in December, could serve as a model to
address long-standing Papuan grievances.
FEARS GROW OF NEW MILITARY CAMPAIGN IN WEST PAPUA
Increasing tension near the town of Mulia in the Punjak Jaya region
ofWest Papua has raised alarms among human rights activists that a
new military campaign by the Indonesian military, intelligence
operatives and police may be in preparation.
Earlier in December the Indonesian military reported that two
Indonesianmilitary personal were killed while searching for an armed
resistance, pro-Papuan independence element. The armed element
briefly took over the town of Mulia 24 December but then withdrew
when it appeared that the Indonesian military would attack the town.
Human rights sources have reported that the Indonesian military
commander for the Nabire region was in Mulia in late December. These
sources also report the arrival of new military and police forces in
the region, including TNI Battalion 753 from Nabire, Kopassus (the
notorious special forces troops), Brimob (Police Mobile Brigade) and
Intelligence agencies units. Human rights defenders in West Papua
also report that the military build up has generated tensions in the
region. Sources in West Papua and the region informed the West
Papua Advocacy Team that as Indonesian elements began mobilizing
into Mulia, taking over offices of the local civil authorities,
Papuan civilians began to flee into the jungle.
The purported resistance action was unexpected inasmuch as the OPM
(Free Papua Movement), the broad umbrella organization that has
resisted Indonesian control for decades, generally, and for several
years has observed a truce in support of political efforts by civic
leaders to end military repression and attain self determination.
Some Papuan accounts indicate collusion between the Indonesian
military and the local armed resistance group in Mulia suggesting
possible Indonesian military involvement in staging provocations
that would provide a rationale for military operations in the area.
Paula Makabory, speaking on behalf of ELSHAM, the most prominent
Papuan human rights orgaization, described the present situation as
'very tense and dangerous'. In a December 28 statement she said: 'I
am very concerned that the traditional warriors who are armed with a
few rifles and their traditional weapons, which are bows and arrows
and spears, will be in conflict with the Indonesian army which is
armed with modern weapons.This conflict will cause major casualties
among the local traditional warriors and members of the local
community. The situation is very tense and dangerous.'
Historically, the Indonesian military has exploited such incidents
as the reported killing of military personnel as justification for
broad military operations encompassing 'sweep' operations carried
out in broad swarths of territory. These campaigns, which have
included extrajudicial killings, torture, the burning of churches
and whole villages, as well as the destruction of livestock and
gardens in the past have driven civilians into the jungles where
they have no access to food or shelter. In a 2004-2006 military
campaign, also in the Punjak Jaya district, thousands of Papuans
were displaced and scores died. In the period 1996-98, the infamous
"Mapenduma campaign" caused even greater suffering among Papuan
civilians.
During such military campaigns, already tight restrictions on access
to West Papua by journalists, human rights monitors or humanitarian
assistance providers,typically are made even more severe. Such
restrictions afford the security forces carte blanche to violate
fundamental human rights norms and even Indonesian law.
NEW INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT PRESSURE ON PAPUAN CHRISTIANS
On December 29, Indonesian authorities occupied church property in
West Papua's capital Jayapura and assaulted two Christian pastors,
Rev. Seblum Karubya and Rev. Noakh Nawipa. The police action
followed a public accusation by the Indonesian minister of defense
earlier in 2006 that the Christian Church in West Papua along with
international non-government organizations were promoting
independence in West Papua, associating it with the small
pro-independence "Free Papua Movement," the OPM. The statement by
the senior Indonesian official at the was viewed by observers as
signaling official "green lighting" of a campaign of pressure
against the leading Papuan Christian congregation.
The police withdrew from the office following two days of peaceful
demonstrations by 400 Papuans outside the office but have since
alleged that the church is the "religious arm of the West Papuan
National Lberation army."
>From 1962 to 1983 the Kingmi Church (which was established by
American missionaries from the Christian and Missionary Alliance)
operated independently in West Papua. In 1983 Kingmi Church joined
with the Gereja Kemah Injil Indonesia (The Tabernacle Bible Church
of Indonesia). That step was taken in order to ensure that
Indonesian authorities would issue visas for foreign missionaries
applying to live in West Papua.
Prominent pastor and author Rev. Benny Giay has refuted charges that
the church has aligned itself with the pro-independence fighters in
West Papua and has explained the church's disaffiliation from the
Jakarta central church as a practical step: 'When foreign
missionaries stopped coming to West Papua we decided that there was
no reason to continue to remain under the control of Jakarta. In
our congress this year we withdrew our membership from the Gereja
Kemah Injil Indonesia and reinstated the Kingmi Church's former
status as an independent Synod in West Papua. Jakarta opposes this
and accuses us of being separatists' says Pastor Giay. He has
specifically rejected police claims that the church, which has
engaged in peaceful efforts to protect human rights in West Papua
has now or has ever had ties to armed elements in West Papua.
Jason MacLeod from the Institute of Papuan Advocacy and Human Rights
(IPAHR) says that the accusation by Jakarta is ominous. "The label
"OPM" is used by the police to silence debate and stigmatize West
Papuans on the basis of ethnicity in order to justify repressive
security operations. Church leaders in West Papua who speak out for
peace and justice are regularly subject to surveillance and
intimidation by the security forces."
Pastor Giay, author of numerous books about politics and religious
movements in West Papua, holds a PhD from Leiden University in the
Netherlands and is well known internationally for his human rights
advocacy. He is calling on his international networks to encourage
Jakarta to support the right of the Kingmi Church to run their own
affairs free of government interference and intimidation.
FREEPORT UNDER RENEWED PRESSURE TO COME CLEAN
Reuters reported in early December that New York City Comptroller
William Thompson, in his capacity as overseer of New York City's
pension funds, has called for a review of Freeport-McMoRan Copper &
Gold Inc.'s environmental policies and practices in Indonesia.
Freeport operates the largest copper and gold mine in the world. It
was opened 40 years ago in West Papua that preceded Indonesia's 1969
formal annexation of West Papua but was nonetheless conducted under
Indonesian auspices.
The comptroller cited reports that Freeport-McMoRan dumps nearly
230,000 tons of waste a day, including toxic metals, into
Indonesia's river system. In addition to long-standing claims by
reputable environmental organizations regarding the mine's
devastating impact on the local environment, Indonesia's Minister of
the Environment in March 2006 accused Freeport of violating water
quality regulations. In that same month, a landslide associated
with the Grasberg mine killed three people and injured dozens more.
"Freeport McMoRan's poor environmental record needs to be examined,"
Thompson said in a statement. "The least the company can do is
ensure that it is not causing environmental damage to the rivers and
in any way harming the people of Indonesia."
The New York City pension fund holds 544,458 Freeport shares worth
about $33.6 million. The Pension fund is pressing Freeport to
review its environmental practices in Indonesia and will reportedly
raise the issue at the 2007 Freeport shareholders meeting. Thompson
called for a report to shareholders from that study by next
September.
Thompson earlier in 2006 asked the US. Justice Department to
investigate if Freeport payments to Indonesian military forces
violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Thompson also asked the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to review Freeport's 2004
and 2005 proxies to determine whether it made misleading statements
about those payments.
Freeport also stands accused by both Indonesian and international
human rights organizations of complicity in the Indonesian
military's widely documented human rights abuse targeting Papuans.
That complicity reportedly has included Freeport material support of
Indonesian military operations that have led to the burning of
villages and forced evacuation of Papuans to remote jungle areas
where they have died as a consequence of the unavailability of food
and shelter.
COMMENTARY: ACEH PEACE AGREEMENT A MODEL FOR WEST PAPUA?
The transition from war to peace in Aceh and the emergence there
through a transparently democratic process of a genuinely Acehnese
leadership inevitably raises speculation that a similar bargain
between Jakarta and Jayapura might end or at least reduce the
tragedy that has engulfed West Papua since its forceful annexation
by Indonesia four decades ago.
The bargain in Aceh entailed a willingness by the armed Acehnese
resistance (GAM) to set aside its demands for independence and to
surrender its arms. In exchange, Jakarta agreed to remove military
forces not organic to Aceh and to allow, for the first time, local
political parties to form and contest elections. The victory of a
former GAM commander in the December election for Governor, made
possible by the agreement was welcomed by Achenese generally. The
prospect of further gains by Aceh-based parties in 2009
parliamentary elections suggests the possibility that Aceh may come
to enjoy an "autonomy" designed not in Jakarta but in Aceh itself.
Could such a plan work for West Papua? Clearly there are important
differences. Many observers believe that the 2004 tsunami was
critical in bringing international attention to Aceh which in turn
served to nourish and protect the peace process and midwife the
successful GAM-Jakarta negotiations. Unfortunately, West Papua
remains behind an opaque curtain, first drawn across the land by
Indonesia when it took effective control of West Papua in 1963 and
maintained since. Behind that curtain, the Indonesian military has
committed crimes against humanity entailing the death of scores of
thousands of Papuans, the rape of Papuan natural resources and the
repression of political, social, economic, religious and cultural
rights.
Moreover, the Papuan armed resistance, the small, ill-armed and
loosely organized Papuan pro-independence force, the OPM (Free Papua
Movement) does not constitute the military challenge to the
Indonesian military that the GAM did. Its capacity to bloody the
Indonesian military is limited. Many argue in fact that its
existence serves the Indonesian military's interests insofar as it
functions as a justification for the Indonesian military's presence,
thereby enabling the military to conduct broad ranging legal and
illegal businesses, extort legitimate businesses and obtain
promotions and extra "combat" pay.
The OPM generally has observed a self-imposed truce, in support of
efforts by Papua's civil society to secure a demilitarization of
West Papua and launch a serious dialogue with Jakarta about West
Papua's future.
In addition, Jakarta's hapless administration of West Papua has left
Papuans with a vastly inadequate infrastructure, abysmal health and
education services, and a largely untrained administrative cadre.
Any genuinely Papuan chosen administration would face great odds in
meeting even basic human needs, even if long promised funding under
broken promises of autonomy were to begin to flow through
uncorrupted channels.
On the other hand, West Papua would clearly benefit from a reduction
of the egregious Indonesian military presence Papuans also aspire
to meaningful Papuan input on such crucial policy questions as in
migration (regarded as transmigration under another name) and
transparent, uncorrupted administration of central government funds.
Papuan control over development of Papuan resources is a basic
demand and right long denied the Papuan people.
Any serious, senior-level discussion of such a grand bargain would,
as in Aceh, probably require a Papuan abandonment or at least
deferment of aspirations for independence. But such a Papuan
sacrifice should not be the price for opening such wide-ranging
negotiations with Jakarta. Rather, it should be the ultimate Papuan
concession in exchange for a comprehensive deal incorporating the
full range of Papuans' other aspirations.
Finally, as in Aceh, any such improvement in the plight of Papuans
would not be possible without strong, public and insistent
international demands for justice for Papuans. International
engagement in that process, as in its central role in brokering the
Aceh bargain, would also be a sine qua non for any just and
meaningful outcome.
---
Special Report: West Papua
Monday, 8 January 2007, 10:09 am
Column: West Papua Institute For Human Rights
Special Report: West Papua; Report of Rev Socratez Yoman on Puncak Jaya
The 8th December 2006 Incident In Puncak Kumipaga, Puncak Jaya Was A
Manipulation Which Was
Wholely Created By Indonesian Military And The Fake Opm (The Fake Free
Papua Movement Armed
Force) Trained By The Indonesian Military
On 3rd January 2007 at 07.00pm (West Papua Time), the TNI (Indonesian
Military Force) and the
Indonesian Mobile Brigade Police (Brimob) had an operation to search for
civilians whom they have
labeled TPN/OPM (National Freedom Fighters/Free Papua Movement) on the
hill of Kumipaga, Yamo
District, Mulia-Puncak Jaya Regency. Civilians who were trained by the
Indonesian Military forces had
fled to other villages. Documents found in the field were books containing
names of Task Force and some
bows and arrows. No one was injured or killed in this search. The military
and the police are still
occupying the Kumipaga hill.
The shooting incident that killed two soldiers of the Indonesian Military,
Sergeant Joko Susanto (Special
Force unit) and Tobias Sirken (a retired Military officer) and the Morning
Star Flag (banned West Papuan
flag) that was raised on the Kumipaga Hill, Yamo district, Puncak Jaya
regency were created by the
Indonesian Military Forces in cooperation with the Fake OPM who had been
trained and had been
protected by the Indonesian Military Forces.
Description of the area where the incident happened: Kumipaga is an area
where local inhabitants have
their gardens. Thus, they do not farm or have their gardens inside the
forest. The area is not far from the
capital town of Mulia district. It can be reached within 30 minutes by
foot from Mulia district. The
Kumipaga Hill is a bit marshy. Both people in Mulia District and on the
hill of Kumipaga could see each
other. The people in Mulia can hear the voice of people shouting at the
Kumipaga Hill.
Description of Mulia people (Puncak Jaya): Generally, the people in Puncak
Jaya do not have education.
The estimate number of people who have education is about 50 people. Most
of the people trained by the
Indonesian military as fake OPM do not have enough education. Thus, these
people were used by the
Indonesian military to achieve their political goals in West Papua. The
fake OPM was created, protected
and was allowed to do the Indonesian military and the Indonesian Police
projects.
Description of the Morning Star flag and the weapon owned by OPM: the size
of the morning star flag
raised before (Sunday, the 24th of December 2006) was small, however, the
size of the Morning Star flag
raised on Sunday, the 24th of December 2006 was big. The questions are:
- Who gave the big flag and the weapon?
- Did OPM have sewing machine in the jungle, thus, they could sew a big
size Morning Star flag?
- Who gave the M-16 weapon?
- Did the civilians have any skills of operating the modern machine gun?
Indonesian military personnel were dropped off in Puncak Jaya using
Indonesian military helicopters. The
presence of a large number of military troops has threatened the local
inhabitants.
ANALYSIS OF THE INCIDENT
The incident on the 8th of December 2006 at Kumipaga Hill, Puncak Jaya was
part of the Indonesian
government and the Indonesian military operation in the whole region of
West Papuan land. The name of
this operation was "Communication Networking Development and Regional
Conditioning". On the 9th of
June 2000 the Director General for the National State Integrity (which is
a section of the Ministry of Home
Affairs) issued a very secret document. The document with the following
registration number:
578/NK/KESBANG/D/IV/VI/2006 was issued following a radiogram and a fax
from the acting Governor of
Irian Jaya province (radiogram no: 190/1671/SET/dated 3rd June 2000 and
fax no:
190/POM/060200/dated 2nd June 2000) about the condition of self
determination of the Melanesian
people of West Papua. The main point of the very secret document from the
Home Affairs was "Regional
Conditioning and Community Networking Development Operation Plan" to
anticipate the political direction
of Irian Jaya (West Papua) towards independence and freedom from the
Unitary State of the Republic of
Indonesia.
Location of Operation: all regencies, towns, and remote regions of Irian
Jaya province. Method of
implementation: through extension of regencies and municipalities as many
as necessary.
Operation Agents: Ministry of Home Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
Intelligence Units (BAKIN, BAIS
TNI, BIN), Indonesian Arm Force Headquarter, Regional Military
Headquarters, Indonesian Police
Headquarter, Strategic Arm Force, and Special Arm Force).
The incident on the 8th of December 2006 at Kumipaga Hill, Mulia district,
Pucak Jaya regency was
related to previous violence, human right abuses, and the conflicts that
were allowed to happen and that
were created by the Indonesian military such as:
- Incident 31st August 2002 at PT Freeport Tembagapura, Mile 68, Timika
that killed two American
citizens, Ricky Lynn Spier and Edwin Leon Burgon, and one Indonesian
citizen, FX Bambang Riwanto.
Antonius Wamang and 7 civilians were accused of shooting the victims. They
are now having their
punishment from the Indonesian court. Although, the Papuan Police had
issued a report that showed
evidence that military personnel took the shooting. Sadly, the important
report and the evidence have
deliberately been destroyed/disappeared.
- Incident 4th April 2003. The destruction of the Wamena Regional
Headquarter's Weapon Store that
killed two Indonesian military personnel, Lieutenant Napitupulu and
Sergeant Ruben Lena. The gunman
was unidentified.
- Military operation in Kuyuwagi on April 19th, 2003 that killed 10
civilians and 61 people died of starvation
in their hiding place in the jungle. Besides, churches, schools, and
hospitals were destroyed and burned.
People's gardens were also destroyed by the Indonesian military.
- Incident 5th November 2003. Yustinus Murib and 9 other civilians were
tortured and killed by the
Indonesian military in Yeleka village, Kurulu district (Jiwika),
Jayawijaya regency.
- Incident 17th August 2004. Special Arm Force personnel in Puncak Jaya
killed Reverend Elisa Tabuni.
At the same time military operations in Puncak Jaya was funded with the
Papuan Special Autonomy
Fund. The amount of the military operational fund was Rp. 2,520,000,000.00
(Two billion five hundred and
twenty million rupiahs). This operation had forced native people to flee
to the jungles where 60 people died
of starvation.
There are efforts to create confusion of who committed crimes against
humanity in Puncak Jaya. There is
an accusation that the killing of the two Indonesian military soldiers and
the raising of the Morning Star
flag was a manipulation prepared by one candidate of the Puncak Jaya
regent candidates.
The accusation was based on a very secret SPECIAL REPORT document from the
Special Force
(SATGASBAN-4 KOPASSUS Post 7, Mulia) No: R/01/LAPSUS/X/2006 dated 15th
October 2006 Section:
Social and Politics Re: Chronology of Anarchy Actions of the people who
received fuel and petrol
compensation fund (Direct Cash Fund) in Mulia district, Puncak Jaya
regency. The document was signed
by Captain Henry Mahyudi. The report was sent to the Special Force
commander (SATGASBAN-4
KOPASSUS) in Jayapura.
The point of the 10 page-report was stated in the conclusions point 1 and
point 3.
Point 1 : "The political conspiracy of Eliezer Renmaur (the ex-regent of
Puncak Jaya) and the separatist
groups was a step back away from the concept of the Unitary State of
Republic of Indonesia as a Final
Price. Eliezer Renmaur's efforts to win the regional elections did not
support the special autonomy law no
21/2001."
Point 3: "The mass riots and conflicts caused by the people who received
the Direct Cash Fund was a
culmination of provokes and political moves of Elizer Renmaur and his
supporters from the Indonesian
Democratic Party, and also some involvement of the separatist groups who
tried to cancel the regional
elections in Puncak Jaya.
The questions are:
- Whether civilians and bureaucrats like Eliezer Renmaur have expertise in
planning strategies and
managing conflicts?
The history of the Melanesian people in West Papua has proven that it is
only the military who had the
theory of creating conflicts, maintaining the conflicts or allowing them
to happen. The military have
implemented the theory in West Papua since the 1st of May 1963 until the
present.
In conclusion, all the incidents that have happened on Papuan land
including the recent one in Pucak
Jaya (8th December 2006) were the Indonesian government and the Indonesian
military justification
efforts to achieve their following main agenda:
- The increase of the number of military personnel for the purpose of
military operations in West Papua
particularly in the central highland of West Papua.
- Formation of new battalions and new military headquarters in all newly
formed central highland
regencies. The main reason was that these regions are not safe, therefore,
any extension of regencies
must be followed by the formation of new military headquarter.
- The extension of the central Irian Jaya province and the South Irian
Jaya province was based on the
assumption that the OPM still exists and would cause disturbances in these
regions. (In reality, the facts
show that the fake OPM created by the Indonesian military was the one that
always created disturbances).
- Create Papua as a land of conflicts so the increase in number of
military personnel may be justified.
This also has become a source of funding projects for higher Indonesian
military officers.
- Systematic efforts of ethnic genocide of the native Papuans.
An appeal to the International community:
(We demand that):
- The governments of USA. European Union, Australia, the Pacific Islands
Forum, Asian Countries and
the black people of the African continent to put pressure on the
Indonesian government to open a
peaceful and respectful dialogue with the native people of Papua to solve
the tragedy of humanity in West
Papua.
- The implementation of the Special Autonomy No 21`/2001 must be
re-evaluated by the Papuans and the
international community because Special Autonomy has not guaranteed the
survival and the basic rights
of the native Papuans. Special Autonomy in fact has brought disaster and
suffering to the native Papuans.
- The UN Special Commission on Human Right needs to visit West Papua to
investigate human rights
abuses in West Papua.
- (International) Human Rights activists/workers need to visit West Papua
to investigate human rights
abuses in West Papua.
- Immediately stop all Indonesian military operations in West Papua by
withdrawing all non-organic troops
who have been working in disguise in all regions of West Papuan land.
Reported by: Socratez Sofyan Yoman
President of the Fellowship of West Papuan Baptist Churches
West Papua January, 4th, 2007
Sent by Matthew Jamieson
Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights
ends
---
HERLINA, SOVIET SUBMARINES AND DR. SOUMOKIL
by David Chan
I was on a passenger ship, KM Dobonsolo, sailing to Jakarta when
Abdurrahman Wahid was elected by
the Indonesian Parliament as the fourth President of Indonesia replacing
Prof. Habibie.
With me in the same 3rd class cabin was an old Papuan, the retired Colonel
Adrian Leonard Marani (83).
He was tall and strong in his age. He could still read without using
glasses. I was happy to have a precious
opportunity talking with him along our trip from West Papua to Jakarta.
The topics of conversation were
about his good old days serving the Indonesian navy, his trip to Eastern
Europe, and the Mandala
operation to "liberate West Papua from the clutch of the Dutch
colonialism." He also told me that he was
the one whom President Habibie invited to counter the Tim Seratus (Team of
one hundred) who
demanded independence from Indonesia.
"How many Papuans do we have? How many Indonesian are there? If there is a
war, we -the Papuans-
will all die," he said while sitting on his bed across from me. I didn't
want to counter his statement. To
respect him, I chose to be a good listener. Sometimes I asked several
questions to dig deeper into his
stories. During our four days sea journey I was "trying to absorb" lots of
his personal stories.
I, as a concerned citizen living in West Papua, have different opinion
about this wonderful island. I
support Papuan's cause in demanding their right to self determination. It
is JUS COGENS.
There are some interesting stories which he revealed.
About Herlina
Indonesian students learn, from high school history textbook of grade 3,
that Herlina was a heroine. She
was a woman volunteer to jump in a parachute and landed in the West
Papua's jungle to liberate the
Papuan people. Because of her struggle, the Indonesian government awarded
her the Pending Emas
Prize.
In the contrary, what Mr. Marani said was totally different. "Herlina, a
heroine? Ha.. ha.. ha... (laughing).
No, she wasn't. It's a complete lie. It's not true. I knew her. She was a
girl who didn't know what to do in
Java, just a girl who had no life goal. She joined the TRIKORA coming into
West Papua. You know what
she did here? She entertained high-ranked army officers here. She fell
into the warm embrace of high
ranking army officers, from one to another," Mr. Marani said.
"Ha... ha... ha.. (laughing again). Operasi Mandala was not a war. It was
our provocative acts to attract
International attention in our dispute over West Irian case against the
Dutch. The soldiers and the
volunteers who landed in West Irian were unready for big battle against
the Dutch. They only burned
houses, shot here and there creating much noise to bring the Dutch into a
cornered position that we are
liberating Papua," he added. "Ha... ha... haa..." (laughing again)."
Richard Chauvel, a researcher from Australia, and Ikrar Nusa Bhakti, a
resercher from LIPI Indonesia,
wrote on page 26 of their report, The Papua Conflict published by East
West Center Washington as
follows, I quote:
Among the people Soekarno sent to liberate West Irian was Herlina, a
21-year old woman from East Java.
Motivated by a sense that the Dutch had let the Irianese live in stone-age
conditions so they could be
easily enslaved and their resources exploited, Herlina joined the struggle
to liberate the primitive Irianese -
"all but naked and wearing 'koteka'... their bodies covered in pig fat" -
so that they could be free
(merdeka) and develop along with their brothers and sisters in other parts
of the country.
Herlina survived the parachute jump somewhere in the Bird's Head area to
find herself naked, washing
herself in a tropical downpour in a jungle Garden of Eden, suddenly
surrounded by five equally surprised
"Adams of the stone age." She distracted them with the gift of a mirror
and recorded in her memoirs that
she could not suppress a feeling of pity: "Was it this life that the Dutch
offered them? When would they be
freed from their stone-age civilization?"
Just a week ago, an older friend of mine, Albert, confirmed that Herlina
was not a hero. "Yes, what Mr.
Marani said was true. Herline was only a prostitute."
About Soviet Submarines:
"To deploy troops in Hollandia (Jayapura), we asked the Soviet Union to
help us. They sent their
submarines. These submarines loaded with our troops passed through the
Pacific Ocean north of Biak
island and then disembarked them near Hollandia," Mr. Marani explained.
About where Mr. Soumokil was executed:
Standing on the outside aisle of the main deck of the ship, we were
watching the ship slowly entering the
Kepulauan Seribu (Seribu islands) in the north of Jakarta bay. Not far
from us was a small island with a
tall concrete tower on it.
"What island is that?" I asked.
"The Dutch called it UNDRUS island. It was the island where Dr. Soumokil
was executed. Soon after
President Soeharto came into power, he ordered the army to execute Dr.
Soumokil there," Mr. Marani
answered. From the history book that I studied, Dr. Soumokil was the
President of the Republic of South
Maluku. The Maluku islands are located between Sulawesi and Papua islands.
In a report written by Dr. Karen J.D. Parker, REPUBLIC MALUKU: The Case
for Self Determination,
presented to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in March 1996
Session in Geneva, it is
said that the Moluccan declared their independence on 25 April, 1950
because Indonesia government had
violated the 1949 Round Table Agreement. The agreement gave prerogative
right to the Moluccan to
refuse incorporation into the Republic of the United States of Indonesia
either by exercise of a negative
vote in a pre-incorporation plebiscite or by refusing to ratify the
Provisional Constitution of the Republic.
The same as West Papuan, Moluccan people are Melanesian.
Adrian Leonard Marani was an old West Papuan who loved Indonesia very much
and remained loyal to
the country at the time of our conversation. The stories which he revealed
above were not acts of revenge
against Indonesia. They are just part of his memories serving the navy.
Again I was lucky to listen to his
account and to rewrite them to you in this article.
David Chan, a concerned citizen living in West Papua.
---
FREE WEST PAPUA CAMPAIGN
Oxford, 11th January 2007
Dear friends of West Papua,
People often ask me "Why have I never heard of West Papua before
now?" The answer is simple. Ever since Indonesia occupied West Papua
nearly 44 years ago, it has done everything possible to keep its
crimes in West Papua secret from the outside world --- and it has
successfully encouraged its key allies (including successive UK, US
& Australian governments) to do the same.
As some of you will already know, a very significant event in the
history of West Papua's struggle for independence took place last
Monday in London. There was an unprecedented hour long debate on
West Papua in the UK Parliament (House of Lords) instigated by a
long-standing and very great friend of the Free West Papua Campaign,
Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the former Anglican Bishop of Oxford.
Lord Harries made a powerful speech urging the UK Government to
support the West Papuan people's legitimate right to
self-determination. He was followed by four other strong supporters
of West Papua in the House of Lords;
Lord Griffiths of Burry Point (a prominent Methodist minister and
broadcaster),
Lord Archer of Sandwell (highly respected lawyer and former
Solicitor General in the 1974-79 Labour Government),
Lord Judd of Portsea (a former Labour Government Overseas
Development [1976-77] and Foreign & Commonwealth Office [1977-79]
Minister, Director of Oxfam and Rapporteur for Chechnya to the
Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the
Council of Europe, and
Lord Avebury (a member of the Liberal Democrat Foriegn Affairs team
with a strong interest in conflict resolution and human rights,
especially in Aceh
and West Papua.
Finally, Baroness Rawlings gave the Conservative Party's position on
West Papua (the official Opposition in the UK Parliament) and
Baroness Royall concluded the debate by speaking on behalf of the UK
Government itself (Labour).
At long last, Indonesia's illegal occupation of Indonesia through
the Act of NO Choice and its brutal crimes against the West Papuan
people ever since, were spoken out loud on a very significant
stage - the British Parliament - and neither the Indonesian nor the
British governments could do anything to silence it!
These are just three significant excerpts from the reply by the UK
Government spokesperson, Baroness Royall, together with my comments:
1) The Act of NO Choice:
"I return to the Act of Free Choice. Although we recognise that it
was extremely flawed, the UK has no plans to support a review of
that Act. We believe that is a matter for the Netherlands and the
UN. As the 1962 New York agreement was between the Dutch and
Indonesian Governments, and the UN oversaw the 1969 Act, we have
little locus to question the legality of either. The 2001 special
autonomy law allows the establishment of a truth and reconciliation
committee to look at the incorporation of Papua into Indonesia in
the 1960s, which we believe indicates that the Indonesian Government
recognise the need to address the long-standing problems in Papua."
FWPC comment: We now have the phrase "extremely flawed" to add to
Baroness Symons' 2004 admission that in the Act of NO Choice "there
were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were largely
coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia".
Also notice that the UK Government is not saying that there
shouldn't be a UN Review of the Act, just that the Dutch should be
calling for it, rather than the British. We have been advised that
in fact any UN member state (including the UK) could request a UN
Review and as was shown by the UN investigation into its handling of
the Srebrenica massacre, the UN Secretary-General can also himself
instigate a review (see Lord Avebury's speech).
Baroness Royall is right to say that the "2001 special autonomy law
allows the establishment of a truth and reconciliation committee to
look at the incorporation of Papua into Indonesia in the 1960s", but
what she failed to say is that six years later the Indonesian
Government has failed even to start to set it up. Also note that
under the wording of the 2001 Law (Article 45. 2a), the purpose of
this committee will be "to classify the history of Papua to
stabilize the unity and integrity of the nation within the Unitary
State of the Republic of Indonesia", hardly promising for a body
designed to get to the truth of the Act of NO Choice!
2) Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage's case:
"The noble Lord rightly raised the case of Filep Karma and Yusak
Pakage who were shamefully imprisoned in 2005 for flying a flag
identified with the separatist struggle. The Indonesian Government
have obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and their own constitution to guarantee freedom of
expression throughout Indonesia. We encourage the Indonesian
Government to implement those obligations. As the noble Lord
suggested, our embassy in Jakarta is monitoring the case; it will
look into it further and make representations, if appropriate."
FWPC comment: Notice the words "shamefully imprisoned". These are
the strongest words yet uttered by the UK Government about Filep and
Yusak's case.
Under a separate Parliamentary Question in the House of Commons in
December 2006, we learnt that despite countless requests, the UK has
"not raised this case specifically with the Government of
Indonesia". Just "monitoring the case" means that up till now no
pressure is being exerted by the UK on the Indonesian government
about Filep and Yusak's "shameful imprisonment". Now at least we
have an assurance that they "will look into it further and make
representations, if appropriate." We must make sure that the UK does
indeed raise the case specifically as soon as possible and that they
unequivocally call for Filep and Yusak's immediate release.
3) The future:
"I heard noble Lords' graphic descriptions. Papua is in many ways
the last blot on Indonesia's global reputation. As the noble Lord,
Lord Avebury, said, the situation in Aceh has improved, and perhaps
that can be built on. The UK Government believe that the best way
forward for Papua and its people is through peaceful dialogue
between representatives of the Papuan people and the Indonesian
Government and the implementation of the Special Autonomy Law of
2001. We will do all we can to support that process."
FWPC comment: Everyone involved in the international Free West Papua
movement can now say that according to the UK Government "Papua is
in many ways the last blot on Indonesia's global reputation".
===============================================
The whole House of Lords debate is copied at the end of this
message. The Hansard (official record) web page can be found on:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70108-0013.htm#07010827000001
Please make use of the strong words spoken in this debate as much as
you can, both to encourage West Papua supporters in your own
countries and also to show your MPs and governments how much more
seriously the UK Parliament and Government are now taking the issue
of West Papua.
Please let me know any reaction you get back from MPs and
governments in relation to what is now taking place in the UK. This
debate is indeed a big step forward. Now it's up to all of us to
keep up the pressure for as long as it takes.
Richard
Richard Samuelson
Free West Papua Campaign, Oxford, England
www.freewestpapua.org
========================================
NEW! World Music CD to benefit FWPC
Hi all
Just to let you know about the release of a special benefit CD,
raising vital funds and awareness for West Papuan refugees.
It features acts from 17 countries around the world who have come
together to support the West Papuan people, by each donating a track
to this CD.
There's everything from African roots to Brazilian folk music,
Romanian gypsy beats to traditional Aboriginal music, ambient
electronica to Japanese fusion!
Please support this unique project and purchase a copy at
http://www.dancingturtle.co.uk/shop/merdeka.php
All proceeds are going to the Free West Papua Campaign and every
penny raised will help support those in need back in West Papua.
Thanking you all...
Papua Merdeka!!
Dominic Brown,
London, UK
=========================================
West Papua Debate
8.27 pm
Lord Harries of Pentregarth rose to ask Her Majesty's Government
what representations they are making to further the independence of
West Papua.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for
allowing time for this short debate and, in particular, to the
speakers who put their names down. We all feel some sympathy and
admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has had to
battle in such an indomitable way for so many hours already, and
must now face a fresh subject.
West Papua may seem far away and its problems small compared with
the very grave situation in the Middle East. To its people those
problems are immediate and painful, and the principles at stake are
fundamental to civilised life in the modern world. The issue at the
heart of this question, as in the conflict in West Papua itself, is
whether a people have the right
to self-determination and, if so, how we ensure that they can freely
choose to exercise that right. The West Papuans are a people-the
same people as those of Papua New Guinea on the east of the
island-who obtained their independence from Britain over 30 years
ago. They have no desire to be ruled from Jakarta. As a Foreign and
Commonwealth Office briefing in 1969, now publicly available, put
it:
8 Jan 2007 : Column 91
"Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian
(West Papua) have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are
of an alien (Javanese) race".
It went on to say that,
"the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice
to be made".
That is putting it very mildly. The so-called Act of Free Choice
consisted of 1,026 people being forced at gunpoint to vote for
integration with Suharto's Indonesia, and this being taken as the
voice of the people.
That this is the case is now publicly recognised by the British
Government. In a historic statement to this House in answer to a
Starred Question in my name, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who
was then the Minister, acknowledged that,
"there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were
largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in
Indonesia".-[Official Report, 13/12/04; col. 1084.]
The question now is: what can be done to rectify this historical
wrong and what is the next step? In particular, what steps are the
Government taking? The policy of the Indonesian Government is to
divide the country into three provinces, two of which have come into
being with, in theory, a limited degree of local autonomy in each
one. It has to be said plainly that this policy is not working and
will not work. It is leading to increasing unrest, human rights
abuses and the build-up of military forces in each of the three
areas. I am afraid that it is the age-old policy of divide and
rule-a policy that has a particular economic dimension in West
Papua, when one province has the liquid gas. It will not satisfy the
West Papuan people who wish for self-determination as a people, not
rule from Java through a well-funded elite and a strong military
presence. Where do we go from here? I have three questions for the
Government. I leave the important question of arms sales,
particularly arms that can be used for internal repression, to
others.
First, will the Government take the lead in bringing this issue to
the United Nations? I do not underestimate the difficulties. A
number of powerful countries have strong economic ties to Indonesia,
not least in the arms trade, and will be only too anxious not to
make a fuss about this matter, as they were anxious not to make a
fuss about it at the time of the so-called "Act of Free Choice" in
1969. We are, of course, one of those countries. But this
Government, through the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, had the honesty
to admit that what happened in 1969 was a total travesty. The
Government can only enhance their reputation by carrying this issue
forwards with-and these are the key words-a steady and consistent
policy.
The public recognition in this House in December 2004 was only a
first step. To mean anything, it must be pursued. In particular,
will the Government make a public commitment to support a
UN-sponsored rerun of the flawed in 1969 "Act of Free Choice", this
time as a genuine, one-person-one-vote referendum, internationally
monitored and giving the tribal peoples of West Papua the chance to
choose freely between independence, free association or continued
integration with Indonesia.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 92
Secondly, will the Government make more specific representations
about the human rights abuses taking place, documented by Amnesty
International? It has been estimated that, since 1969, more than
100,000 West Papuans have been killed and there are now some 9,000
refugees in Papua New Guinea. The Catholic Church's Papuan Peace and
Justice Secretariat reported in June last year that students who had
been arrested after a peaceful demonstration and been interviewed by
their investigators had been denied access to legal representation
and had suffered physical and mental torture. At present, there are
more than 100 political prisoners in West Papua of whom I mention
only two this evening, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, who were jailed
for 15 and 10 years respectively for raising the West Papuan
national flag-the morning star-on 1 December 2004, and who have been
recognised by Amnesty International as political prisoners. The date
of 1 December is significant because that was the day in 1961 that
the Dutch granted West Papua independence, an independence which was
quickly and sadly lost when Indonesia invaded the island in 1962,
claiming it for themselves.
I understand that the Government are generally monitoring the
situation of political prisoners through their embassy in Jakarta,
but will they specifically raise the issue of these two prisoners of
conscience, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, with the Indonesian
Government and make it clear to them that not only must they be
treated humanely, but that the basis of their charge and
imprisonment is totally unacceptable in any society that claims to
be democratic?
Then, thirdly, arising from this there is the whole question of
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to form political
parties, freedom of access for journalists and NGOs and the
importance of achieving a genuine dialogue between the Indonesian
Government and the people in West Papua who wish to raise the issue
of self-determination.
At the moment the Indonesian Government lays down a pre-condition
that this subject cannot even be raised in discussions. Yet that is
the issue at the heart of this conflict. The West Papuans are a
peace-loving people and they want to talk about what matters to
them. At the moment, this is prevented by the heavy military
presence and the refusal of the Indonesian authorities even to allow
certain questions to be raised. Linked to this is their refusal to
allow access to outsiders who raise these questions. In May of last
year the UNHCR's regional representative said in evidence to an
Australian Senate inquiry,
"I can confirm that, despite repeated requests, the UNHCR has not
been given permission by the Government in Jakarta to have access to
West Papua".
Other aid agencies and nearly all foreign journalists, as well as
Amnesty International's fact-finding mission, have also been refused
permission to visit.
After its historic recognition in December 2004, I hope that the
Government will pursue this matter with a steady and consistent
policy in three ways: first, with a view to achieving a genuinely
free vote about self-determination; secondly, by raising the
8 Jan 2007 : Column 93
matter of serious human rights' abuses, particularly in relation to
Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage; and, thirdly, by urging the basic
freedoms of speech, assembly and access, which are absolutely
fundamental to any country that regards itself as democratic.
8.36 pm
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harries
of Pentregarth, is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to
our attention. He has long championed the human rights of the people
of West Papua, keeping their plight before the House and the British
public for a number of years. He is to be thanked for doing so again
this evening, and the least that we can do for him in this short
debate is to press my noble friend the Minister to inject some
urgency into efforts to address the flagrant denial of justice to
the people of West Papua. The noble Lord has put forward an
admirable programme and some practical suggestions. If every speaker
simply does that, it might give the weight of the whole House this
evening to some practical outcomes.
As the noble Lord said, when my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham
Dean admitted in an answer to a previous debate that the 1969 Act of
Free Choice was a flawed exercise, she went on to ask a simple
question: "What should happen now?". She gave the beginnings of an
answer to her own question by suggesting that, as 35 years had
passed since the flawed referendum of 1969, it would be better to
look to new proposals then being put forward than to continue to
harp on about ancient events. Special autonomy legislation only
recently passed by the Indonesian Government would, she said, grant,
"70 per cent of oil and gas royalties originating in Papua-as well
as 80 per cent of forestry, fishery and mining royalties-to the
people of Papua".-[Official Report, 13/12/04; cols. 1084-85.]
A truth and reconciliation committee had been set up to look into a
number of the offences that people were complaining about. It would
be best, said the noble Baroness, to see how the measures were
embedding before we mapped a way forward.
What she did not say was that, between 1969 and 2004, the same 35
years that were considered to have consigned the referendum to
ancient history, there had been a massive transmigration programme
that brought 1.2 million people into West Papua of Javanese and
Sumatran origin, nearly all of them Muslims. That changed the nature
of Papuan society and culture radically. The Indonesian Government
implemented the same policies at roughly the same time in East Timor
and with the same objective-to change the nature and allegiances of
a people who were being obstreperous and seeking their rights of
self-determination. Incidentally, in Eritrea, Ethiopia attempted the
same business of changing the nature of the population to achieve
its ultimate goals.
The benefits of the new legislation-the special autonomy
legislation-would accrue not to a Papuan population at all but to
one so radically different that fewer than 50 per cent of the
population were the original indigenous Papuans in the first place.
The
8 Jan 2007 : Column 94
noble Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned the large number-more than
100,000 at the lowest estimates-of people of Papuan origin who had
been killed in the same period.
We have seen in the way in which Eritrea was abandoned by its United
Nations overseers in the post-war period to the whims of Ethiopia a
similar case of injustice. It was a United Nations set-up body that
in New York allowed Indonesia to annex West Papua to itself. The
Eritrean People's Liberation Army fought a long war of attrition to
attain its rightful status, and I was present on the day of the
referendum in 1993 when, with great jubilation, at last the Eritrean
people felt that they had gained their objective despite the
opposition of the international community; so, too, the Free Papua
Movement may be counted on to maintain its opposition to the present
arrangements and to seek the support of the world community in
achieving its legitimate objectives.
The 1969 Act of Free Choice was both cynical and wrong. It involved
about 1,000 hand-picked people; a significant number of them were
tribal leaders who were rounded up a month before the referendum and
indoctrinated so that they would vote as they were obliged to, at
gunpoint, on the day of the referendum. The voting exercise was
overseen by, of all people, the Indonesian army, mainly. There were
a couple of objective overseas observers, but they left before the
vote was completed. All responsible commentators agree with that
analysis. No amount of truth and reconciliation will hide or play
down that basic fact.
Indonesia has been seen by all the major playersin the West as an
important bastion against communism. The United States has played a
significant part in seeing the outcomes that we are discussing this
evening come to pass, but our own country is associated with it and
so is Australia. Even the Vatican, because of the significant number
of powerful Roman Catholics in the Indonesian republic, has
preferred to turn a blind eye to some of these questions on the
margin of its consideration.
In view of that, we must ask ourselves how we implement an ethical
foreign policy towards this small region. The question will not go
away; it did not do so in Eritrea or East Timor, nor will it in West
Papua. I hope that my noble friend will help her colleagues in
government to show a preferential option to those suffering
injustice, as this is a case clamouring for appropriate attention.
8.43 pm
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, together with my noble friend
Lord Griffiths, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harries on again
drawing attention to a subject that for too long has represented a
dereliction of responsibility by the international community. Any
unlawful usurpation should evoke condemnation if international law
is not to be brought into disrepute, but here there has been
persecution, murder, evictions and burning of the villages of
innocent human beings, while the world has looked on. Surely that
will reflect opprobrium on our generation from those who come after
us.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 95
We could debate at length the precise criteria for the right of a
people to self-determination. Those debates go back to the League of
Nations, but today we are spared legal hair splitting. Here, there
is a population of 800,000 people, racially differentiated from the
population of Indonesia, with its own history, culture, and
inhabiting a clearly defined territory, yet ruled by an alien
administration which by a persistent policy of repression and terror
has made itself hated and feared.
We have every criterion for the right to self-determination. The
principle is declared in Article 1.2 of the United Nations charter
and further enshrined in the two human rights covenants of 1966.
There is clear consensus that two principles follow. First, the
right includes the right of a people to decide how to exercise its
choice. It is for the people to decide who their delegates are to be
and what the decision-making process is to be. They are entitled to
do that free from any pressures, internal or external, after such
free discussions as their choice may require. Secondly, the right is
continuing and not exhausted once it has been exercised, validly or
otherwise. A right to choose entails a right to make continuing
choices as circumstances change or simply if there is a change of
mind. A third principle, while we are passing, is that the right
includes a right to enjoy the natural resources of the area and to
decide how they are to be developed and exploited. Article 1.2 of
the international economic covenant reads:
"All peoples may, for their own end, freely dispose of their natural
wealth and resources", subject, of course, to existing obligations.
The situation has a shamefully long drawn-out history of which the
international community has no reason to be proud. In 1949, the
Netherlands Government conceded independence to Indonesia, but vast
areas had been included in the territory purely for the purposes of
administration and not by any stretch of the imagination because
they werea natural part of Indonesia. The Indonesian Government said
that the newly acquired statehood should extend throughout that
territory. The Netherlands Government said that the peoples of West
Irian were entitled to decide whether they should be included in the
new state or whether they should have some other status.
Up to that point, the Papuan people had not been invited to
participate in the discussions. The Netherlands said that the issue
should be decided by the United Nations. Indonesia said that it was
an internal matter, not the concern of the international community,
and that it should be resolved by negotiations between Indonesia and
the Netherlands, which clearly would never eventuate in an
agreement. Nevertheless, the General Assembly discussed the question
in 1954 and again in 1961 but was unable to agree on a resolution.
It is worth pointing out that in those debates West Papua had no
representation-it had no seat in the General Assembly.
On 31 December 1961, West Papua achieved a very short-lived
independence. The Indonesian Government terminated it unilaterally
by military
8 Jan 2007 : Column 96
force. In 1962, Indonesia and the Netherlands reached the New York
agreement, which was designed to resolve the issue. The Netherlands
would transfer administration of West Papua to a United Nations
Temporary Executive Authority established by and answerable to the
Secretary-General. It was said that arrangements would be put in
place for the people of West Irian to choose in accordance with
international practice and with the participation of all adults,
male and female. That agreement was approved by the General
Assembly, so it was accepted by all concerned that the population of
West Papua was a separate and identifiable people entitled to
self-determination. I hope that, in replying, my noble friend will
clarify whether the Government accept that conclusion or, if not,
why not.
The outcome of such a choice was predictable. We now know that John
Kennedy's ambassador reported 85 to 90 per cent of the population as
being in sympathy with the Free Papua Movement. That outcome would
have left Indonesia, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths said, blaming
the West. The United States was concerned that if Indonesia turned
to the communist bloc there would be an outpost of communism in east
Asia. The Temporary Executive Authority proved to be very temporary.
It was persuaded by the United States to acquiesce in the assumption
of control by the Indonesian Government. That was fatal to any hope
of a fair entitlement. It led to the infamous Act of Free Choice
about which both noble Lords have already spoken, and I will not
repeat that. It has been condemned by international lawyers and by
other authorities again and again.
There the situation rests. The Indonesian Government introduced the
special autonomy law in 2001, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths
pointed out, but there has been no autonomy, and the atrocities go
on. As all too often, the persecution, the murders and the
incarcerations will continue for as long as the protest continues,
and that will continue as long as the situation remains as it is.
Any form of international action can take place only if it is
initiated by a national Government. The United Kingdom Government
still carry respect and influence in these matters. The question is
whether they retain their dedication to an ethical foreign policy. I
am sure that I know the answer that my noble friend would like to
give; many of us are looking forward to hearing the answer that she
is authorised to give.
8.51 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord
Harries of Pentregarth, on introducing this important debate
tonight. There were many reasons for wanting to intervene; perhaps
the whole issue of human rights, to which the noble Lord referred,
would be sufficient in itself. We have a Government who claim that
they want to see a world based on human rights, accountable
government and democracy. They want to play a full part in working
towards that world. It logically follows, therefore, that we have an
interest in the injustice of the situation in West Papua.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 97
I am afraid that I see in the situation too many sinister and
ominous parallels with East Timor. I have visited Indonesia on a
number of occasions, and I visited East Timor in the final stage,
just before the terrible conflict that led to independence. The
people of that part of the world are wonderful; they deserve more
than they are enjoying.
Sometimes in debates of this kind we become a bit theoretical and
remote in our analysis, and I therefore am not ashamed to bring to
the attention of the House a letter that was brought to my attention
fairly recently. It is an open letter written by Benny Wenda, the
chairman of the Koteka Tribal Assembly and the leader of the West
Papua Independence Movement, to the Indonesian ambassador in
Britain, who had apparently expressed surprise that West Papua was
seeking independence. This letter, written with some passion, was to
tell him why. In the letter, Benny Wenda referred first to what we
have already heard about the invasion of their land. He then
referred to the referendum that was offered as a so-called act of
free choice, which in fact was in the context of the ruthless
intimidation of those who were likely to vote for independence. Then
there was the removal of people to make way for the exploitation of
gold, copper, oil and timber reserves. Again, ruthless techniques
were employed, such as bombing from helicopters. People were
rendered homeless, raped and murdered; all this was part of what
happened.
Perhaps I can quote directly from the letter, which is passionate
and written with real feeling:
"Then you started to rip open and destroy our Land. We call our Land
our Mother because she gives us everything we need to live. You sold
our Mother to British, American & Australian companies like Rio
Tinto & BP. You got rich whilst we West Papuans got poorer, not
because we want your kind of riches, but because without our Mother
we die".
He concluded:
"Now you say that we are 'free and equal citizens of the new
Indonesian democracy'. But when we tell you we want to use this 'new
free democracy' to campaign democratically and peacefully for
independence and when we just want to see our own flag flying in our
own Sky, you cover our Land with soldiers, you put us in prison, you
torture us and you kill us".
I have no first-hand experience by which I can assess these
accusations, but I have the experience of visits to Indonesia and to
East Timor and I am afraid that the accusations ring all too true to
me.
Obviously, it is not convincing to contemplate a world in which
every ethnic group has a national identity of its own. That would
make neither political nor economic sense. But consent is essential
if countries are to stand together in meaningful democracy and
freedom, and consent depends on trust. Where trust is absent-and it
seems to be totally absent in this case-consent can hardly be
expected. The genie is out of the bottle.
I have often wrestled with this conundrum. Should one come down on
the side of every possible move to try to hold the situation
together, or are there some situations in the world in which that
task is so impossible because of the realities on the ground-as I
say, the genie is out of the bottle-that to try to do so would only
make a bad situation worse and the
8 Jan 2007 : Column 98
time may have come to recognise and come to terms with the
inevitable? Look at what happened in East Timor before, eventually,
the natural conclusion was reached.
I refer to our responsibility and I put it in the context of our
Government's commitment, of which I am very proud, to democracy and
human rights, and in the context of the logical follow-through from
such declarations of intention of what is necessary when faced with
such situations. Of course there are also more tangible reasons for
our responsibility, including the importance of the economic
relationship between Britain and Indonesia, not least through arms
sales, which indirectly compound the situation that we are
describing. I hope that the Government will take the noble Lord's
entreaties seriously and can come to a candid relationship with
Indonesia in which realistic talk takes place about the way forward.
8.58 pm
Lord Avebury: [Liberal Democrat spokesperson] My Lords, I am afraid
that the short answer to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord
Harries, is none, as the UK does not support the independence of
West Papua and we were accomplices in its unlawful annexation by
Indonesia. The right of self-determination, while undoubtedly a
legal right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, pointed
out, is a matter of state practice in the absence of any rules for
determining how it should be enforced. Therefore, is there any point
now in reviewing the events that led up to the so-called act of free
choice?
In the cases of Srebrenica and Rwanda, there were formal inquiries
into how those appalling tragedies were allowed to happen. The
Secretary-General himself took responsibility for investigating the
Srebrenica massacre, in which an estimated 20,000 people were
slaughtered by the Serbian militias. However, as two noble Lords
have pointed out, in West Papua something like 100,000 people have
been killed since the Indonesian occupation-five times as many as in
Srebrenica-yet the UN has failed to review the conduct of the bogus
operation carried out under its auspices that led to this enormous
tragedy.
When I asked the Government six years ago whether they considered
that an independent audit of the UN's role should be commissioned,
the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said that she was satisfied that
the study being conducted by the Institute of Netherlands History
would serve that purpose. That report, by Professor Pieter
Drooglever, was published in November 2005 and, as has already been
said, it confirms that the outcome had been pre-determined by
Suharto, who had issued instructions that nothing but a ruling in
favour of Indonesia would be acceptable. The UN observers were
allowed to see as little as possible and were ejected from the
territory immediately after the so-called vote.
The UN was directly responsible for what happened because it was
nominally in charge from 1962, when the Dutch left, until November
1969, the date of the fraudulent act, although, as has been pointed
out, from 1963 onwards the Indonesians were
8 Jan 2007 : Column 99
allowed to govern the territory. The UN returned only in August 1968
under an agreement which required it to,"advise, assist and
participate in", the arrangements for the act of free choice, which
was to be carried out, "in accordance with international practice".
That was immediately violated by the UN itself, which failed to
organise a plebiscite and, instead, agreed that the decision would
be made by an assembly, whose members would be indirectly elected by
an undefined electorate. As we have heard, the Indonesians chose the
1,000-odd candidates, all of whom were elected unopposed in batches,
with the so-called "voters" browbeaten or bribed into approving them
by acclamation. UN observers saw the elections of 195 of these
stooges but, significantly, their report to the General Assembly was
silent on the conduct of the operation.
By that time, the UN team had been whittled down to a mere 16
members at the insistence of the Indonesians, and it would have been
impossible for it to fulfil its remit, even with full co-operation,
in a territory the size of California with only the most primitive
transport and communication systems. However, members of the team
did not complain when no interpreters were provided or when they had
to ask permission every time they wanted to move outside the
capital. They failed to blow the whistle when they saw Indonesian
soldiers and officials pouring into the territory in far larger
numbers than planned and exerting heavy pressure on the Papuans to
choose integration and give up the dream of self-determination.
That fraudulent process was endorsed by the General Assembly with
the approval of the UK. The Permanent Secretary at the Foreign
Office had recommended not entering into correspondence about
self-determination, and in the UN we firmly supported the betrayal
of the West Papuans, not on grounds of principle but out of
solidarity with the Dutch and as a means of improving our relations
with the military dictator General Suharto, who had done a splendid
job exterminating half a million communists and was therefore a man
to be encouraged.
The Government may not seek to persuade the UN that there should be
a rerun, as the noble Lord, Lord Harries, called it, of what
happened in 1969, but they should at least seek an opportunity to
get the Drooglever report upheld and endorsed by the General
Assembly, and that is what I ask the Minister to agree to. In other
cases where the UN has failed to uphold the rights of peoples, it
has recorded and acknowledged its appalling mistakes and their
tragic consequences. Will the Minister agree that the act of free
choice cries out for the same treatment?
More than that, should not the international community try to
alleviate the suffering now being endured by West Papuans, unseen by
human rights organisations, foreign journalists, the UNHCR and MPs,
all of whom, as we have heard, have been refused permission to enter
the territory? The EU
8 Jan 2007 : Column 100
Troika was invited in 2005 but declined because, I understand, at
that time the Aceh negotiations were at a crucial stage. Will
Ministers now ask the German presidency to seek a renewal of that
invitation so that the present EU Troika can at least go to see what
is happening in West Papua today?
Unfortunately, although President Megawati made offers of special
autonomy to Aceh and West Papua in 2001, there has been a complete
divergence between the fortunes of the two provinces since then. In
Aceh, a peace agreement was concluded in 2005 and successful
elections have now been held there. Could not the lessons of that
peaceful outcome be transferred to West Papua in principle-not in
detail but, as has been suggested, at least by starting negotiations
towards an outcome similar to that in Aceh? The present deployment
of extra troops and paramilitary police is not the answer, any more
than it was in Aceh. We should be saying respectfully to Indonesia
that a framework is needed for negotiating a political settlement,
building on the experience of Aceh, although perhaps involving not
just the OPM but representatives of all the diverse communities in
West Papuan society, including civil society, traditional tribal
leaders, the church and the MRP. If we can ask for that, we shall be
getting somewhere.
9.05 pm
Baroness Rawlings: [Conservative Party spokesperson] My Lords, I too
add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Harries, on securing
this debate, particularly following the media reports over the
festive season that suggested tensions are increasing.
Indeed, there are claims that a force of between 2,000 and 5,000
military and police mobile brigade personnel are currently
undertaking an operation in the Punjaya region. I hope that the
Minister will be able to comment on these very concerning claims in
her response. No doubt she recognises, as did the noble Lord, Lord
Judd, that some nationalist groups fear that Papua could become the
next East Timor. That has a significant bearing on today's debate.
Papua, a name adopted in 2002, is currently a province of Indonesia.
It refers to what some of your Lordships might remember from days at
school as the region known as Dutch New Guinea during the colonial
era. Papua-nee Irian Jaya-became a province of Indonesia following a
UN supervised Act of Free Choice in 1969, the legitimacy of which,
as the noble Lords, Lord Harries and Lord Griffiths, have already
highlighted, remains disputed.
As your Lordships are aware, West Papua was the major beneficiary of
a nation-wide decentralisation process started in 1999 and the
special autonomy status introduced in early 2002. Measures included
the formation of the Papuan People's Council and redistribution of
resource revenues. Those measures were welcomed but we are
frustrated and disappointed, along with many Members of your
Lordship's House, by the continuing failure regarding the
implementation of the special autonomy law. We on these Benches
believe that the full implementation will lay the groundwork for a
long-term resolution to the growing crisis in West Papua and will
offer
8 Jan 2007 : Column 101
stability for the province. What recent steps haveHer Majesty's
Government taken to encourage the Indonesian Government to proceed
with the special autonomy law? Can the Minister inform the House
whether the Prime Minister raised the issue during his visit to the
country last year?
We could not have had a debate today without mentioning the human
rights situation in Indonesia. There can be no doubt that it has
dramatically improved, for which the administration should be
commended. However, there is still a very long wayto go. Significant
concerns continue to surround violations by the Indonesian armed
forces, restrictions on access to Papua for journalists and NGOs and
a number of cases where prisoners have been convicted for treason
for displaying the Papuan flag. Many of your Lordships will find it
very difficult to consider that Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage have
been jailed now for 15 and 10 years respectively for peacefully
raising the independence flag, and yet army officers convicted of
involvement in the murder of the Theys Eluay, the independence
leader, in 2001, received only three years. What steps are Her
Majesty's Government taking to ensure that there will be a public
debate regarding the human rights issues in Indonesia and in
particular guaranteed open access for NGOs and journalists? What
consideration has the Minister given to the calls for the Papuan
People's Council to be fully involved with the central Government of
Indonesia in working towards an acceptable solution?
This has been a most interesting and detailed, if specialised,
debate. As my right honourable friend William Hague said:
"We have the privilege of living in freedom. But with that privilege
comes the responsibility to use our liberty to speak up for those
who are denied it".
It is important to consider West Papua within both its historical
and current context, as much as we have great sympathy with many of
the concerns raised today-indeed, we share some. However, we do not
believe that meaningful dialogue with the Government of Indonesia
can take place on the basis of calls for Papuan independence.
We support the UK Government in respecting the territorial integrity
of Indonesia. We are not calling for the independence of Papua, but
for an open, inclusive and frank discussion and the full
implementation of the special autonomy law. We value our good
relationship with Indonesia but we believe that it is dragging its
feet on this issue. The Government could and should press harder to
find, through dialogue, a peaceful, just and dignified resolution.
9.11 pm
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: [UK Government spokesperson] My Lords,
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for
introducing this debate. It is an important issue in which he has a
long-standing interest. The people of West Papua are lucky to have
such a fine and vociferous champion in the noble Lord.
I have listened carefully to the debate, but must start with a clear
statement that the UK does not
8 Jan 2007 : Column 102
support independence for Papua. Like the vast majority of other
international players, we respect Indonesia's territorial integrity
and have never supported Papuan independence. I note the comments of
the noble Lord, Lord Harries, that the people of West Irian have no
desire to be part of Indonesia. I respectfully point out that voter
turnout of over 70 per cent in the elections last March perhaps
suggests that they are becoming a little more content with the
situation.
The best way to resolve the complex issues in Papua is through
promoting peaceful dialogue between Papuan groups and the Indonesian
Government. Meaningful dialogue with the Government of Indonesia
cannot take place on the basis of preconditions of Papuan
independence. President Yudhoyono has said that he is committed to a
just, comprehensive and dignified solution, including through
consistent implementation of special autonomy. We welcome this
important objective, and encourage him to press ahead with it. The
special autonomy legislation is enshrined in Indonesian law, and was
supported by Papuan groups and the international community. Full
implementation of the legislation will lay the groundwork for a
sustainable resolution to the internal differences and the long-term
stability of the province. The UK is of course also committed to
improving the well-being and political participation of Papuan
people, as well as encouraging freedom of expression throughout
Indonesia.
My noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell cited the
economic covenant, and many others have referred to the special
autonomy legislation on oil and forestry revenue. The special
autonomy legislation grants Papua 70 to 80 per cent of the royalties
from natural resources rather than the tax revenue. Papua is
receiving this and, to make up for the fact that it receives none of
the tax revenue, the central Government pay 2 per cent more than to
other provinces in Indonesia under devolution. In 2006, it received
$438 million, higher than every other province in Indonesia bar one.
My noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port referred to special
autonomy issues. Many such issues still need to be implemented in
the legislation, but progress is being made; for example, the
establishment of the Papuan People's Council and the election of a
provincial governor. Legislation has been, or is in the process of
being, approved on the use of Papuan symbols-essentially the flag
and certain anthems-the special autonomy budget, forestry issues,
protection of customary rights, health and education. Of course,
there is much more to be done and we will keep pressing them to do
so.
The noble Lord, Lord Harries, asked if the Government would support
a review of the Act of Free Choice. If your Lordships will forgive
me, I have lost that section of my papers, so I will come back to it
shortly because I have something to say on that.
We are working with the Indonesian Government to support the most
pressing economic and social needs of the Papuan people. Under
Indonesia's decentralisation laws, Papua's directly elected
8 Jan 2007 : Column 103
governors and district heads have significant political and fiscal
authority. The central Government have devolved control over every
area but five to Papua: foreign affairs, defence and security,
fiscal and monetary policy, religious affairs and justice. The UK,
through the multi-donor decentralisation support facility and other
projects, is working to build administrative capacity and ensure
that these local Papuan governments are accountable to the people
that they serve.
I return to the Act of Free Choice. Although we recognise that it
was extremely flawed, the UK has no plans to support a review of
that Act. We believe that is a matter for the Netherlands and the
UN. As the 1962 New York agreement was between the Dutch and
Indonesian Governments, and the UN oversaw the 1969 Act, we have
little locus to question the legality of either. The 2001 special
autonomy law allows the establishment of a truth and reconciliation
committee to look at the incorporation of Papua into Indonesia in
the 1960s, which we believe indicates that the Indonesian Government
recognise the need to address the long-standing problems in Papua.
I think that my noble friend Lord Judd mentioned transmigration.
Non-Papuan migrants make up about 35 per cent of the total
population. However,in 2000 the Indonesian Government ended the
transmigration programme in response to concerns about the ethnic
mix. Spontaneous migrants continue to arrive in relatively large
numbers, but there is no government programme to increase the number
of non-ethnic Papuans in the region. I suggest that the special
autonomy programme is therefore relevant to the lives of most West
Papuans.
DfID is closely involved in formulating the governor's development
strategy, which will focus on the millennium development goals. DfID
is looking to align its own funding for Papua with the governor's
vision. The DfID-funded multi-stakeholder forestry programme has
been working to improve land use in Papua, by supporting detailed
mapping and informed policy change. Papua is also a key area of
focus for DfID's HIV/AIDS programme, working through the Indonesian
partnership fund for HIV/AIDS. Other donors are also engaged in
Papua to improve conditions on the ground.
The UK is also working in a number of areas to promote dialogue and
improve political participation in Papua. UK-funded human rights
projects in Papua include funding for the Indonesian human rights
commission-to travel to remote areas of Papua to investigate alleged
human rights violations-public education about rights regarding
treatment by the police, human rights training for the police and
providing a police complaints post.
In respect of human rights, we do indeed have an interest, and I
hear what your Lordships, including my noble friend Lord Judd, have
said about the human rights situation in Papua. We believe that the
human rights situation in Papua too is improving. There is little
credible information to suggest that major systematic abuses of
human rights are currently taking place, although I hear what the
noble
8 Jan 2007 : Column 104
Baroness, Lady Rawlings, said. The major concerns are chronic
low-level harassment, freedom of expression and association, and
social and economic rights-as in other areas of eastern Indonesia.
Of course, we will continue to take reports of human rights
violations seriously; we raise these with the Indonesian Government,
together with our European partners and as part of our bilateral
dialogue. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we will
certainly make representations to the German presidency to resume
the troika idea.
Several Jakarta-based correspondents, including representatives of
the BBC and the Washington Post, received permission to visit Papua
in 2006, including sensitive areas in the central highlands. We
welcome this increased access for journalists. We regularly
encourage the Indonesian Government to permit journalists to visit
Papua to promote better international understanding of conditions
within the provinces.
The noble Lord rightly raised the case of Filep Karma and Yusak
Pakage who were shamefully imprisoned in 2005 for flying a flag
identified with the separatist struggle. The Indonesian Government
have obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and their own constitutionto guarantee freedom of
expression throughout Indonesia. We encourage the Indonesian
Government to implement those obligations. As the noble Lord
suggested, our embassy in Jakarta is monitoring the case; it will
look into it further and make representations, if appropriate.
Several noble Lords mentioned that 100,000 people were killed. There
were certainly brutal operations in Papua in the 1970s, which we
deeply regret and condemn, but we believe that there is nothing to
substantiate the figure of 100,000 people, but even if it were
"only" 10,000, that is 10,000 too many. We continue to take reports
of human rights violations seriously.
Papua is one of the wealthiest provinces in Indonesia in fiscal
terms. However, most Papuans do not see the benefits of that wealth.
Papua is the province with the highest level of poverty-40 per cent
of Papuans live below the poverty line-and health, education and
infrastructure are consistently below the national average. Much of
that discrepancy can be put down to corruption, which is serious and
endemic at the local government level. The UK's projects to build
local government capacity, which I described earlier, aim to improve
that. We welcome the fact that, at the urging of the new governor,
Papua's provincial budget is now being scrutinised by the national
anti-corruption commission.
I heard noble Lords' graphic descriptions. Papua is in many ways the
last blot on Indonesia's global reputation. As the noble Lord, Lord
Avebury, said, the situation in Aceh has improved, and perhaps that
can be built on. The UK Government believe that the best way forward
for Papua and its people is through peaceful dialogue between
representatives of the Papuan people and the Indonesian Government
and the implementation of the Special Autonomy Law of 2001. We will
do all we can to support that process,
8 Jan 2007 : Column 105
and we will continue to raise all of these issues with the
Indonesian Government. I do not know whether the Prime Minister
raised them on his recent visit, but I shall find out and write to
the noble Baroness.
Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, in her response, the Minister stated that
70 per cent of the people of Papua took part in a recent election
and that confirmed their acceptance of the situation. However, 70
per cent of the people of Scotland vote in elections, and a large
proportion of them do not accept the constitutional position of
Scotland within the United Kingdom. Participation in an election
does not imply acceptance of the constitutional position.
Will the Minister confirm yet again the percentage of non-Papuans
who are in Papua? It would not be surprising if a very large
percentage of the majority which supports the present situation were
migrants into the territory.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 106
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: [UK Government spokesperson] My Lords,
I heard what the noble Lord said about participation in elections
and will reflect on it. I said that non-Papuan migrants make up
about 35 per cent of the total population of Papua.
As I said, we will do everything that we can to support the
implementation of the special autonomy law and the dialogue between
the representatives of the Papuan people and the Indonesian
Government. In the mean time, we are working to improve the economic
and political situation for ordinary Papuans through targeted
development assistance, the encouragement of dialogue between the
Government and their representatives, and project-funding to improve
human rights and local government accountability.
House adjourned at 9.26 pm.
---
(KI Additional background: It should be mentioned that the offices
referred to by Benny Giay are in fact
considered the legal property per a recent court ruling of KINGMI
Indonesia rather than Benny Giay''s
split Church. Prior to the court ruling the deeds were in fact held by
Kingmi Indonesia and not Kingmi
Papua. Kingmi Papua people simply took over the properties and there has
been violence by both parties.
This is not as black and white as media has been reporting. There are
legitimate grievances by both
parties and they need to be resolved peacefully - something both factions
have lacked the will to attempt
properly. )
Media Release 1 January 2007
Indonesian Police Accuse West Papuan Clergy of Being Members of the West
Papua Guerrilla Army
In an attack on religious freedom and the church in West Papua the
Indonesian Police have accused the
Kingmi Church of being the religious arm of the OPM (Free Papua Movement).
The increase in repressive Indonesian Government action in West Papua is
occurring at time when the
Australia Indonesia security treaty is to be ratified by Australian
Parliament & would mean Australia
Government would not involve itself in the civil rights issues in West Papua.
Two Kingmi Church clergy, Rev Benny Giay & Rev Noakh Nawipa are accused by
Indonesian Police of
cooperating in an armed attack, close to the Freeport gold & copper mine
in August 2002, which resulted
in the deaths of two U.S and one Indonesian teacher.
These latest allegations come after a peaceful demonstration by some 400
members of the church &
Papuan students outside the Kingmi Church Synod Office in Jayapura two
days ago (30th of December
2006).
Police had forcibly occupied the Synod Office in Jayapura, injuring two
clergy, Rev. Seblum Karubaba
and Rev. Noakh Nawipa, in the process. The police occupied the office for
nearly 24 hours but were
forced to concede to the church demands and vacate the office.
Rev. Benny Giay, the Chair of the Kingmi Church Bureau of Justice and
Peace, says that this
unprecedented action by Indonesian police is a blatant attack on rights of
religious freedom & free
speech.
Rev Benny Giay said today, “I believe that the Rev Paul Paksoal, who is
the President of the Tabernacle
Bible Church of Indonesia (Gereja Kemah Injil Indonesia), who is informed
by the Indonesian military
intelligence, is promoting the idea that our church supports political
activity of the OPM. Rev Paul Paksoal
is saying that myself and Rev Nawipa supported the OPM political activity,
that was executed by the
Antonius Wamang, which resulted in the murders of the two US & one
Indonesian teacher.”
Rev. Benny Giay and Rev Noakh Nawipa vigorously deny all the accusations
and insist that they are being
targeted because their nonviolent work for justice and peace in West Papua.
Benny giay said today, “ This action is a strategy by Indonesian security
forces to use the church of
Indonesian to overturn the right of the Kingmi Church to maintain an
independent Synod in West Papua.
Rev Benny Giay said today “The victims of Indonesian brutality are the
members of the church. The
church has the right to stand up for the rights of the people. It is an
attack on the institution and legitimate
work of the Kingmi Church itself.”
Rev Ishak Onawame, Kingmi church and Antonius Wamang case
Matthew Jamieson representing the Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human
Rights said today, ‘Initial
investigations by Human Rights workers on the ground in Timika and the
Indonesian Police implicated the
Indonesian military in the attack near Freeport on September 2002.
Antonious Wamang publicly
admitted on Australian television (SBS West Papua – Ambushed, 01/09/2004,
Antony Balmain) that he
was involved in the incident.”
“The arrest by Indonesian police of Antonius Wamang and twelve others,
including Rev Izhak Onawame
from the Kingmi Church, occurred in January 2006. The arrest involved an
initial act of deception by US
FBI agents, who promised Wamang that he would travel to the US to stand
trial. In a highly irregular &
politicized trial Wamang and seven co-defendants were convicted by an
Indonesian court in Jakarta on
September 2006. “
“At the time of the arrests Rev Izhak Onawame, was the District
Super-intendant of the Kingmi church in
the Mimika region, which includes Timika, Tembagapurra and the Freeport
mine. I believe that Rev Izhak
Onawame was present at this time as a witness in the negotiations between
Wamang and the FBI.”
“The arrest of Wamang and others coincided with a US Government decision
to renew military ties with
Indonesian in January 2006. The US had previously denied continued
military funding and training to
Indonesian Government after the military were implicated in the murder of
the two US teachers at Freeport
in 2002. Military funding to Indonesian was initially stopped after the
Indonesian military supported militia
actions which razed East Timor after the Independence referendum.”
Matthew Jamieson representing the Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human
Rights also said today, “The
sentencing of the defendants of the Timika case by the Indonesian Court in
Jakarta was very dubious.
There was not fair and proper defense of the accused as their lawyers had
limited access to the
defendants.”
“It is highly questionable that Rev Isahk Onawame and most of the others
charged had any involvement in
the 2002 incident at all.”
“This action of the Indonesian Police to also implicate Rev Benny Giay and
Rev Noakh Nawipa is highly
repressive, unjustified & politically motivated.” Matthew Jamieson said.
----
Security treaty between Indonesian & Australia
Matthew Jamieson went on to say today “The increase in repressive
Indonesian Government action in
West Papua directly correlates to the recent security treaty negotiated
between Australia and Indonesia.
When the Australia Indonesia security treaty is to be ratified by
Australian Parliament will mean that
Australia Government would not involve itself in the civil rights issues
in West Papua. Such an action by
the Australian Government is unjust and will be very bad for the people of
West Papua.”
Matthew Jamieson said, “The attack on the Kingmi Church and TNI
preparedness to carry out further
military operations in the Mulia and Bolakme region of the highlands shows
that even before it has been
ratified by Parliament in Australia, the new security treaty has
effectively given the Indonesian police and
military a green light to crack down on the West Papuan community.”
For English and Indonesia language interviews phone Benny Giay on +62
(0)852 4437 3166.
For further information contact Matthew Jamieson +61 (0) 418291998 and
For English and Indonesian language interviews contact Paula Makabory on
+61 (0) 402547517.
Sent by Matthew Jamieson
Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights
PO Box 1805, Byron Bay, NSW 2481 Australia
matthew at hr.minihub.org fax +61 66848153
mobile +61(0)418291998
---
The Christmas Military Offensive and Humanitarian Crisis in Pucak Jaya,
West Papua
Report by Matthew Jamieson, Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Huamn Rights
7 Janaury 2007
A Humanitarian Crisis is emerging in the Punjak Jaya region of West Papua.
Human rights workers state
that the local population has fled the regions of Tingginabbut, Yamu, Illu
and Mulia Ambat in mid
December 2006 and have gone into the jungle. At this stage no figures are
avaiable but indications are
that thousands of people are involved.
Since the 24 December 2006 there has been the deployment of large numbers
of Indonesian armed
forces, intelligence & police in the mountainous Punjak Jaya region. The
personnel are drawn form TNI
Battalion 756 from Wamena, TNI Battalion 753 from Nabire, Kopassus
(Indonesian army commando’s),
Brimob (Police Mobile Brigade), Polres (Local Police) and Intelligence
agencies BIN & BAIS were being
deployed in the days after Christmas 06.
Two Indonesian military personnel were killed near Mulia, on December 9
2006. These military personnel
were apparently undertaking some form of negotiation with the Goliat
Tabuni OPM/TPN (Free Papua
Movement) group. Two more Indonesian military personnel involved in
search from Illu to Mulia were killed
on 25/26 December near to the Yami River.
Sources near Mulia report that on 5 Janurary 2007 5 Kopassus (Indonesian
Special Commandos) and
one OPM/TPN figher were killed in a military operation at Kimibak Mountain
near Mulia. The Military
Commander of Battalion 1705 was said to be monitoring operations in that
same area on that day.
Kimibak Mountain is the same area that OPM/TPN had perviously had a flag
raising campaign.
Conflict between Indonesian army & Brimob & the OPM/TPN was also reported
in the Muliabur area on 3
January 2007.
The Indonesian military & police are now occupy and are living in the
vacated villages in the regions of
Tingginabbut, Yamu, Illu and Mulia Ambat.
The people displaced by the conflict are said to be traveling across the
mountains east and north to Sinak,
Illaga, Kwiwyaga and Bioga Districts. It is currently wet or rainy season
in this area and these very
rugged mountain areas are mostly 2000 - 4000 meters.
The people would have left behind their pigs and gardens. There is
concern about their health and welling
being as they will have little access to food and no medicine.
The life of traditional rural communities in Punjak Jaya is based on
subsistence farming of sweet potato
and pigs in very remote mountain valleys. First contact with these
mountain communities with the western
world happened via Christian Missionaries who bought Christianity and
converted these communities from
the mid 1950’s onwards.
In the recent years similar repeated military operations from 2003 to 2005
in the Punjak Jaya region have
caused major catastrophe in the local community.
During a period of military operations, in 2003, ten local people were
killed and sixty deaths reported from
starvation directly due to famine caused by these military operations. In
2004 and 2005 over 6000
persons were reported displaced by military operations. Hundreds of
homes, churches, clinics and
schools burned to the ground.
Traditional warriors, who form the OPM/TPN are armed with bows and arrows
and spears and a few
firearms. Any conflict between them and the Indonesian militiary would
appear to be very one sided.
Human rights workers say that the Indonesian military and police justify
their presence and repressive
actions by manipulating, promoting and extending conflict with these
warriors from the OPM/TPN.
Rev Socratez Yoman President of the Baptist Church in Papua report
released this week has described
the presence of a fake OPM in Punjak Jaya. “Most of the people trained by
the Indonesian military as
fake OPM do not have enough education. Thus, these people were used by the
Indonesian military to
achieve their political goals in West Papua.The fake OPM was created,
protected and was allowed to do
the Indonesian military and the Indonesian Police projects.”
There is a sense amongst the highland people that their communities will
be swamped by Indonesia in the
next few years. The culture and population of these mountain people is
being destroyed by direct
government action, such as by the military and the disarray these
operations cause and by the lack of
Government action in critical areas, such as control of AIDS/HIV and the
provision of basic health
services for other communicable diseases such as Cholera.
The one sided conflict with the highland people has to be stopped and not
by Indonesia annihilating local
communities with armed forces and willful neglect. There is evidence of
serious and systemic Human
Rights abuse. There is evidence that the International crime of Genocide
has and is occurring in West
Papua and there is reason why the international community has a legal
obligation to be involved in West
Papua.
Members of the International community must ask Indonesian what is
happening in the Puncak Jaya
region and prepare Parliamentary and diplomatic delegations to travel to
West Papua and specifically to
the Punjak Jaya region as soon as possible. A major humanitarian
tragedy is unfolding and the
presence of such an overseas delegation is probably the only way Indonesia
will restrain its military
forces in Punjak Jaya.
Matthew Jamieson
Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights
PO Box 1805, Byron Bay, NSW 2481 Australia
matthew at hr.minihub.org fax +61 66848153
mobile +61(0)418291998
---
Peace Brigades International (PBI) Indonesia Project Positions Available:
Participatory Peace Education sub-team Volunteers.
Both Indonesian Nationals and International applicants are encouraged to
apply.
Protective Services sub-team Volunteers. International applicants are
encouraged to apply.
When: Closing date for applications is 2 February 2007. Volunteer
Training is in early March 2007 in Yogyakarta,(Indonesia). This ten-day
training will be the final step in the application process. The training
will be conducted in English. Having sufficient Indonesian & English
language skills volunteers can join the teams.
Where: Current sub-teams are working in Jakarta, Aceh and Papua.
Peace Brigades International (PBI) Indonesia Project PBI is a
non-profit, nongovernmental organisation (NGO) that works to establish
justice and peace in the world through non-violent action. To do this we
send unarmed international peace teams, when invited, into areas of
repression or conflict to provide Protective Services to those who are
threatened due to their work for human rights and for the creation of a
just peace within their own country. In all of its work, PBI is
committed to the principles of non-violence, non-partisanship, and
non-intervention. Since 2000, PBI's Peace Education Program has been
cooperating with local partners to provide workshops and trainings to
Indonesian civil society groups. The Participatory Peace Education
sub-teams work with local organisations to implement community
peace-building activities. Activities are conducted upon request from
local organisations in Aceh and Papua and possibly in various other
provinces across Indonesia. The expectation is that activities will be
based on a longer term presence of the team in a conflict area, working
closely with local communities. The development and maintenance of peace
education resources will be one of the ongoing activities. The
Protective Services sub-teams will work to increase the working space of
Human Rights Defenders throughout Indonesia. Protective Services not
only include physical accompaniment of Human Rights Defenders at their
offices, homes or on field trips but also entail any activity that
protects and encourages local Human Rights Defenders to stay active and
committed to building a more just society. In order to provide these
services, the team members develop strong networks at regional, national
and international levels. All teams conduct research to analyse the
conflicts in areas where PBI conducts activities in order to include the
effectiveness of existing PBI activities and peace-building strategies.
They maintain correspondence with the Project and write reports on
sub-team activities and program development. These are in Indonesian
(with most local contacts) and English (within the Project and
international contacts).
Contract:
18 months full time volunteer contract. (12 or 15 months contracts to be
discussed with the Human Resources Coordinator) Benefits: Volunteer
stipend/local living allowance, accommodation, medical and
living/working costs; return travel/flight from place of origin and
repatriation allowance. Training: Professional development training will
occur in March in Indonesia. The Indonesia Project covers most of the
training costs; however, there is a sliding-scale fee, which is expected
to be borne by the volunteer. Volunteers accepted with limited or no
Bahasa Indonesian will be expected to spend 3-4 months in language
school before commencing work with the team. Insufficient English
language skills need to be improved as a prerequisite to starting on a
team. There are limited scholarships available for exceptional
applicants (funds permitting), where volunteers are unable to meet the
cost of the training and/or language study. Applicants should indicate
in the initial application if a scholarship is required to help cover
training costs.
1. Qualifications of PBI Team Volunteers: 1. Knowledge, skills and
experiences:
Necessary:
- Excellent Bahasa Indonesian and English language skills, both written
and verbal
- Demonstration of a strong commitment to human rights and social justice.
- Excellent computer skills, including MS Office( Excel and Word are a
priority)
- A commitment to non-violence, empowerment and social justice
- Demonstration of physical, emotional, and psychological stability
Additional skills of PPE Volunteers:
- Skills in training or education including experience and knowledge of
methodologies.
- Knowledge or practical experience with peace-building and nonviolent
conflict resolution or other related disciplines with a social justice
focus.
Desired:
- Experience in working with conflict
- Experience with local Non-Government, religious or social organisations.
- Knowledge about or prior experience with PBI
- Previous experience working in a non-hierarchical group that makes
decisions by consensus.
2. Characteristics
- Willingness to work in conflict zones
- Commitment to work for an 18 month period
- Excellent interpersonal skills
- Ability to live in a group environment
- Commitment to a grass-roots lifestyle
- Commitment to empowering others
- Awareness of the complexities of working in a multi-cultural environment
- Flexibility in responding to changing priorities
- Ability to manage stress
- Strong understanding of, and commitment to, nonviolent communication
both on the team and in the community
- Understanding of the need for non-partisanship on the project and
ability to work in a non-partisan manner
- Readiness and willingness to live for a long period of time in a rural
area in very simple living conditions, and under a lot of stress.
Volunteers will need to understand the possible risks they face
It is expected that a PBI team volunteer will be 25 years of age or
over. A younger applicant may be considered at the discretion of the
Indonesia Project. In order to apply, fill in the Application and
Reference forms which can be obtained by sending a short email to
PBItraining at gmail.com or online at www.peacebrigades.org by the 2
February 2007.
--
forwarded by:
***********************************************************************
Watch Indonesia!
---
Media alert
West Papuan clergy seek resolution to humanitarian crisis in Puncak Jaya
West Papuan representatives of the clergy from 20 different churches in
District Yamu in Punjak Jaya
have meet with Els-ham (Institute for Human Rights study & Advocacy) staff
to jointly work to resolve the
humanitarian crisis occurring in the Puncak Jaya region.
These clergy have said that 5000 members of church congregations from
Catholic, Kingmi and Baptist
churches have been displaced by the Indonesian military & police
operations. These 5000 people are
from Yamu district and are said to be hiding in the jungle.
These clergy have reported that members of the church congregations have
been in the jungle since
December 2006 when they fled the military operations. The clergy state
that there is no civilian access
allowed into the region and the Police & Army deny this access.
On civilian, Lenus Murib, has been reported shot dead by military in Yamu
District.
There is concern for the health and well being of women and children.
Els-ham reports that in similar military operations in 2004 & 2005 there
were 6000 people from 27 villages
displaced from their homes. Famine and many famine related deaths were
reported.
Rev Socratez Yoman in a recent report stated that the Indonesian military
and police are responsible for
promoting the conflict situation and resulting humanitarian crisis in
Puncak Jaya.
Local sources report that there are 3000 troops in Puncak Jaya in the
town. Additional Brimob
(Paramilitary Police) & Indonesian military are reported to be undertaking
operations outside the town.
Human Rights workers report that many civilian houses have been burned and
that Government buildings
and vehicles have been reportedly taken over by the military.
The Cenderwasih Post (Jayapura, 14 January 2007) reports that the
Indonesia Police dispute the number
of 4000 people who have fled military operations in Puncak jaya. The
police a reported to say that the
people have returned to there villages as they have nothing to fear.
For further information contact:
Paula Makabory +61 402547517, Els-Ham West Papua
Rev Socratez Yoman +62 812 4888458, President Communion of Baptist churches
Rev Benny Giay +62 852 44373166 Kingmi Church
Sent by Matthew Jamieson
Institute for Papuan Advocacy & Human Rights
PO Box 1805 Byron Bay NSW 2481 Australia
Tel/Mobile +61 418291998, fax 61 66848153
matthew at hr.minihub.org
---
Media Release West Papua
18 January 2007 The Australia West Papua Association (Sydney)
Oppression in West Papua continues
One year ago 43 West Papuan asylum seekers arrived in North Queensland
fleeing Indonesian
oppression. Today in West Papua, the oppression continues
Reports from human rights groups and church leaders in West Papua have
said that the Indonesian
military have been conducting operations in the Punjak Jaya region of West
Papua causing thousands of
local people to flee to the bush for their safety. These military
operations are a response to the killing of
two military personal near the town of Mulia in December 2006.
In the past the military have used incidents such as the killing of the
two military personal as an excuse to
crack down on what they term to be separatists groups. However, these
military operations have resulted
in the killing of civilians , the burning of villages, the killing of
livestock and local people fleeing to the bush
for safety.
Church leaders have reported that the military have cordoned off the
region with no civilian access
allowed. As the local people are afraid to go and work in their food
gardens many could face starvation.
Joe Collins of AWPA said the Australian government should be doing all it
can to urge Jakarta to halt this
military operation and control its military in the territory to avoid
civilian casualties. We note that in the US
State Department’s 2005 Human Rights report on Indonesia (Released 2006)
it states, “There was
evidence that the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) considered anyone killed
by its forces in conflict areas
to be an armed rebel”.
AWPA hopes that the Australian Parliament will not ratify the new treaty
with Indonesian . Any treaty with
Indonesia at the present time is premature, including given any aid or
training to the Indonesian military in
any form. The Australian government should send a parliamentary delegation
to investigate what is
actually going on in West Papua, Collins said.
Info. 04077 857 97
---
http://www.rnzi.com/pages/news.php?op=read&id=29711
Radio New Zealand International
The Voice of New Zealand, Broadcasting to the Pacific
Te Reo Irirangi O Aotearoa, O Te Moana-Nui-A-Kiwa
American Samoa’s congressman wants Papua’s Act of Free Choice investigated
Posted at 03:55 on 26 January, 20