West Papua's Independent Human Rights Media

Posts tagged “act of free choice

Selpius Bobii: “Stop violence in Paniai, proceed with heart to heart communication”

(Apologies for the delay in posting due to significant funding shortfall and time over-commitments from WPM team)

Analysis/ Opinion

27 March, 2013

 by Selpius Bobii, Abepura Prison

The ongoing conflict in Papua is deliberately generated and professionally driven by Indonesian government through its defence system, purposely to defend the sovereignty of Indonesia over Papua.  Beside political conflicts, economic factors play a certain role in initiating conflicts in Papua. As a result, both Papuan and non-Papuan civilians suffer the consequences, but mostly indigenous Papuans suffer the worst outcome of these conflicts.

One of the regions in Papua that draws major attention of the Indonesian military is Paniai.  The conflicts there that are deliberately initiated by the Defence force of the Republic of Indonesia in confronting the OPM troops led by John Yogi has left the people of Paniai in great devastation.

These ongoing conflicts have left the civilians in a frightening and intimidating situation because Indonesian Police and Indonesian National Army have been doing mass military mobilisation and convoys, committing sexual harassment and assaults on woman and girls, carrying out unlawful arrests, torturing innocent civilians, and raids from house to house, confiscating hunting tools like bows and arrows, axes, and knives.  The local people had to move to the neighboring villages searching for refuge, food and health. Some of them got sick and died, some were shot dead by the Indonesian military.

Violence, intimidation and unlawful detentions by Police  Army are escalating in Paniai in the last few weeks, especially to combat the (local) OPM movement led by John Yogi.

Marko Okto Pekei, SS (Activist from Timika Catholic Parish) reported that the tense situation in Paniai has been going for a long period of time following the forceful disbanding (by Indonesian security forces) of the OPM HQ in Eduda in October 2012. After the incident, Indonesian Security Forces deployed massive number of Indonesian Military personnel in Paniai.

On the afternoon of February 24th 2013 the people of Paniai witnessed the deployment of Indonesia Military into Paniai, 53 trucks dropped them.  During the deployment, a source that did not wish to be named mentioned that an Indonesia police officer (told him)  that, in February 2013 alone, the government ( especially the Defence Ministry) of Indonesia has deployed more than one thousand military personnel from Kelapa Dua Jakarta to Paniai.  As a result, people in Paniai, especially fathers and young men, feel intimidated everywhere they go.  They could not go out for gardening because of the fear that they would be suspected as members of OPM.

During that tensed situation, Marko Pekei also reported that there has been raids carried out in the middle of the night in the villages, unlawful arrest, torture, and forceful kidnapping, abduction and killing of innocent civilians in Paniai.

The latest cases for example are, Stefanus Yeimo who was shot dead by Indonesian Police (Brigade Mobile) at 15:30 (west Papuan time) in Kopo Paniai. He was shot when he and his friend were at a local store buying cigarette. According to the Indonesian Police (POLRI) the reason behind the shooting is, he was suspected to be member of OPM.

At 18:00 on the same day, Stefanus was buried by his family in Kopo village, Paniai.

Meanwhile, according to report from an Activist from Justice and Peace Division of Timika Catholic Parish, there is another victim from the Moni Clan; Indonesian National Army Special Team 753 in Uwibutu tortured him on Saturday March 23rd 2013 at 21:30 local time.

After the victim was arrested he was beaten, kicked and was dragged along the asphalt road. At that time few by passers witnessed that violent and unjust treatment. The victim was even dragged into the police checkroom and brutally tortured until the next day and he was rushed to the hospital for medication.

According to the relative of the victim who did not wish to be named, the victim was intoxicated but was not violent when he went to visit a family friend at the hospital. He left the hospital at 21:30 local time. That was when the Indonesian Army Special team 753 from Paniai unlawfully arrested him took him to their base and beat him up, tortured him and they took him the hospital.

In response to the escalating and ongoing violence in Paniai, We the Front PEPERA (Act Of Free Choice) would like to take this opportunity to demand:

1). Indonesian Army (TNI) and Indonesian Police (POLRI) to stop excessive terror, torture, kidnapping and unlawful arrests and shootings in Paniai.

2). Cenderawasih Regional Military Commander XVII and Provincial Police Commander to stop deploying military personnel in Paniai and as soon as possible withdraw the additional personnel that was deployed from Jakarta.

3). The military personnel who violates human rights in Paniai be brought to justice.

4) Cenderawasih Regional Military Commander XVII and Provincial Police Commander as soon as possible sack the Indonesian Army (TNI) and Indonesian Police (POLRI) personnel who are responsible for the ongoing violence in Paniai.

5). People, Government and Church to work together hand in hand, establishing communications from heart to heart in order to curtail the violence and human right abuses that has been going on in Paniai for a very long time.

6). Journalists to truthfully and honestly expose the real situation that has been happening in Paniai

7) Violence will never solve the conflicts in Papua, therefore We the PEPERA (Act Of Free Choice) Front would like to take this opportunity to demand the United Nation or a neutral third-party to immediately act unconditionally and according to the international law to end the political and social injustice in Papua.

This statement serves as guide and to be carried out by the concerning parties who thinks Papuans deserves justice, peace and security in Papua and especially in Paniai.

Selpius Bobii, Abepura Prison: Wednesday, 27th March 2013.

Selpius Bobii is the General Chairperson of Front Pepera (The United Front of the Struggle of the People of Papua)  and is currently one of the “Jayapura Five”, Political Prisoners held in Abepura Prison, Jayapura, West Papua.  The five (Bobii, Forkorus Yaboisembut, Edison Waromi, Dominikus Sorabut and Agus Kraar) were found guilty in an opaque and predetermined trial of  Treason (Makar) charges, laid after the violent Indonesian security force crackdown on the Third Papuan People’s Congress  in October 2011.

 


Growing international solidarity for West Papua freedom campaigns

by Herman Wainggai*

January 21, 2013

Opinion

It is likely that most US citizens who consider themselves informed about global events are aware of the genocides in Rwanda, Bosnia and East Timor, yet it’s likely that few people in the US are aware of the ongoing genocide in West Papua, New Guinea.

In Rwanda, genocide resulted in an estimated 500,000 deaths in a 3-month period; in Bosnia, genocide resulted in an estimated 200,000 deaths in a 3-year period. In East Timor, there were more than 103,000 deaths in a 3-year period; and, in West Papua, New Guinea, there are conservative estimates of 100,000 Melanesian Papuans killed, and 300,000 displaced or missing over a 47-year period. Remarkable is the disparity of time between the Rwanda, Bosnia and East Timor genocides, ranging from 3 months to 3 years, contrasted with the ongoing 50-year genocide of indigenous West Papuans. In the aftermath of the Rwandan 3-month slaughter of 500,000 people, the carnage was blatant, the atrocities flagrant.

In view of the continuing carnage wrought in West Papua by the Indonesian military during the past 50 years, we must wonder why most people in the Western world are oblivious to the indigenous Melanesians’ plight, and what factors are contributing to the protraction of such abuse.

Indonesia’s colonization and military occupation of Dutch-owned West Papua was achieved, and continues, with the blessing of the governments of the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States, and facilitated by the operation of the world’s largest copper and gold mine owned by Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc., a US corporation.

In addition, for more than 50 years, some of the world’s largest transnational mining corporations have been exploiting West Papua’s oil and minerals, including Union Oil, Amoco, Agip, Conoco, Phillips, Esso, Texaco, Mobil, Shell, Petromer Trend Exploration, Atlantic Richfield, Sun Oil and Freeport (USA); Oppenheimer (South Africa); Total SA (France); Ingold (Canada); Marathon Oil, Bird’s Head Peninsula (UK); Dominion Mining, Aneka Tambang, BHP, Cudgen RZ, and most critically, Rio Tinto (formerly RTZ-CRA) (Australia/UK).

The exploitation of natural resources by extractive industries results in catastrophic harms to human and environmental health and indigenous societies. Typically, mainstream global media, most of which are in thrall to corporate interests, look the other way when such military/corporate injustices are perpetrated upon indigenous populations.

New Guinea is the second largest island on earth, and one of 20,000-30,000 archipelagos in the South Pacific. The island is divided vertically, with independent Papua New Guinea occupying the eastern section and West Papua, now an unwilling province of Indonesia, occupying the western side. There are more than 250 tribes, more than 270 distinct languages and thousands of different pidgin dialects.

In addition to copper and gold, abundant natural resources include natural gas, oil, timber and fish. These resources profit corporate interests and the Indonesian government without compensation to the Melanesian population, who live in poverty.

In 1969, the Act of Free Choice consultation was held in West Papua to ascertain whether the indigenous Melanesian population preferred to remain a province within the nascent nation of Indonesia or become their own independent nation. The consultation was fraudulent, and free participation by the indigenous people was nil. Only 1025 West Papuans, representing a population of one million, were picked ( by the government of Indonesia )  to vote and it was not implemented in accordance  with international law of the New York Agreement on August 15, 1962 – One Man One Vote. It was a whitewash. Nobody gave a thought to the fact that a million people had their fundamental rights trampled ( CV Narasimhan, Deputy Secretary – General of the United Nations 1961 – 1978 ). Thus, the voiceless West Papuans became a province of Indonesia and the victims of 50 years of oppression.

The people of this forgotten land have struggled for freedom for 50 years under brutal Indonesian occupation. The people of the different tribes are raped, tortured and slaughtered, and their natural environment continues to be degraded. In their efforts to resist this injustice, their leaders have been arrested, tortured and threatened with death. For this reason, many now live in exile, where they continue to be involved in education and activism with the goal of enlisting the international community to join their efforts to achieve justice and freedom.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the rights of all people to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to peaceful assembly and association. Indonesia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees the right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, and Indonesia’s constitution also declares those rights. However, Indonesia’s continued arrest and incarceration of nonviolent political activists since the 1980s, and the October 19, 2011 arrests of more than 300 civilians during the Third National Congress, including Edison Waromi and Forkorus Yaboisembut, Prime Minister and President, respectively, will not deter Melanesians from their nonviolent struggle to secure self-determination within a democratic framework, and are recognized, respected and supported by the international community.

For this reason, many peaceful demonstrations took place around the world on

The boat that brought 43 West Papuan Asylum seekers to Australia, putting Papua back on the front page and touching off a diplomatic storm . Photo Damien Baker, Mapoon, Queensland, Australia January 17th, 2006

The boat that brought 43 West Papuan Asylum seekers to Australia, putting Papua back on the front page and touching off a diplomatic storm . Photo Damien Baker, Mapoon, Queensland, Australia January 17th, 2006

January 17, 2013. The Demonstrations commemorated the escape to freedom by 43 West Papuan refugees on January 17, 2006, when, after paddling across open ocean for four days and surviving a violent storm, they beached their traditional canoe in Australia and found asylum. Myself – Herman Wainggai  - am one of those 43.

The Free West Papua Political Prisoners Team in Washington DC is a group of academics and human-rights activists who are willing to stand up for justice and work toward a free West Papua that is independent from military and corporate colonization.

Photo :  Free West Papua Political Prisoners Campaign Team, Washington DC, USA

Photo : Free West Papua Political Prisoners Campaign Team, Washington DC, USA

Human Rights Watch reports that Indonesia has incarcerated nearly 100 activists from Maluku and Papua for peacefully voicing their patriotism and political views.  As one of those former political prisoners forced into exile, I am now a visiting scholar at George Mason University, after being imprisoned for more than two years after daring to raise the West Papuan flag. My uncle, Dr. Thom Wainggai, died while imprisoned for the same demonstration of patriotism.

Free West Papua Campaign in Los Angeles, California

“I want to commend Moana Nui for organizing this demonstration on behalf of the people of West Papua to give voice to their fight for freedom and self-determination.  We call on the leaders of all governments to stop supporting human rights abuses, murder, genocide and the military occupation of West Papua. To our brothers and sisters in West Papua: Continue to fight for what you know is right, for your freedom, your culture, for humanity.  Know that, in this fight, you are not alone.” Harold Green.  http://mnaa-ca.org/jan-17-2013-west-papua-action/

 

Free West Papua Campaign in Melbourne

Foreign Affairs Minister of the Federated Republic of West Papua, Jacob Rumbiak, said international activists are demanding that Indonesia remove its military personnel, and that president Yudhoyono must issue orders to stop the slaughter of West Papua National Committee (KNPB) members.

“Six activists were arrested and tortured in Serui yesterday for handing out pamphlets about today’s rally, including Patris Rosumbre (Vice Governor, Saireri State, Federated Republic of West Papua) and Menase Karubaba,” he said. Rosumbre has since escaped, but the whereabouts of Karubaba are not known, and there is deep concern for his safety.

Photo Free West Papua Campaign Melbourne, Australia January 17th, 2013

Photo Free West Papua Campaign Melbourne, Australia January 17th, 2013

The Federated Republic of West Papua has called for negotiations with the Indonesian government under the auspices of the United Nations since 2011, and, Rumbiak claims, “Indonesia is losing credibility with its international donors in failing to respond to our invitation.”

Free West Papua Campaign in the Solomon Islands

In a statement from Honiara, Chairman of Solomon Islands for West Papua, Rexy Roses, highlighted that more than 50 years of tyranny and

Photo Rexy Roses, Solomon Islands for West Papua, 17th January 2013

Photo Rexy Roses, Solomon Islands for West Papua, 17th January 2013

immeasurable human rights abuses suffered by the indigenous people of West Papua at the hands of the occupying Indonesian military forces is more than too much to bear, and it is now time for dialogue and negotiations to end the violence in West Papua and to allow a peaceful referendum. This year will be a challenging one, and we will ensure that the cries of the indigenous Melanesian people of West Papua be heard in every corner of the Pacific and beyond.

Since the recent peaceful demonstration in Yapen Island and Manokwari, I have been told that the military agents are increasing their violent activity in West Papua and in many other places around West Papua. It is not difficult to imagine the impact that tens of thousands of Indonesian troops have on the daily lives of the West Papuan people. This new action by the Indonesian military raises the question: Why would Indonesia send so many troops to West Papua? Is this to intimidate the West Papuan people, to deny us our freedom of speech and prevent us from peacefully gathering in the land of our ancestors to debate and challenge the domination of our land and freedom? This recent West Papua Media report clearly states that the Indonesian government does not provide for the protection of human rights in West Papua.

For West Papuans, daily life is a nightmare, full of pain, suffering, torture, rape and bloodshed. There is no freedom to speak or act freely. The systematic oppression, terror, intimidation, kidnapping, incarceration, poisoning and murder of indigenous Melanesians in West Papua has not changed since I fled the country in 2006. It’s time to support the West Papuan people in their struggle for human rights and political independence.

Herman Wainggai is a West Papuan civil resistance activist based in Washington DC USA, and former political prisoner.  He lectures in strategic non-violence and civil resistance and is a visiting scholar at George Mason University, Washington.

 

 


ELSHAM finds evidence of 749 acts of violence in Papua

 

JUBI
15 August 2012
Jayapura: ELSHAM, – the Institute for the Study and Advocacy of Human Rights in Papua – found evidence of 749 acts of violence that befell the people living in Papua. Most of these acts of violence occurred during arbitrary arrests and detentions.This is reported in the recently launched book, Masa Lalu dan Tak Lalu – The Past and Never Past – which was published by ELSHAM and the International Centre for Transitional Justice.

During its investigations, the researchers examined 108 testimonies about human rights violations . They spoke to 76 people in Biak, 12 people in Manokwari, ten people in Paniai and ten people in Sorong. The period covered was from the mid 1960s (prior to the Act of Free Choice in 1969) up to the period of ‘reformasi’ (following the downfall of Suharto).

Their researchers spent three months out in the field, studying testimonies and obtained information about 749 cases.

Of the 749 cases, 312 were violations against males and 56 violations against women. The details were obtained from101 victims who were  interviewed. One hundred and one victims  had suffered violations together with a group of people or with more than one person. The types of violence were arbitrary arrests and detentions, 234 cases,  military operations against the civilian population including operations to forcibly evict people 181 cases, and torture and ill-treatment, 97 cases.

There were also 86 cases of deaths as the result of extreme torture,  threats 53 cases, assaults 28 cases, the seizure or destruction of  people’s belongings, gardens or livestock  22 cases, orders to report 26 cases, attacks and searches of people’s homes 4 cases, lack of access to food or medication 4 cases, forcible removals, preventing people from finding work 4 cases, forcible removals 3 cases, lack of access to food or medications, denial of access to families 2 cases, trials without lawyers,  2 cases, preventing people from travelling  2 cases. Finally, there was prevention of access to education. A total in all of 749 cases.

Other points included in the report  were that during the first period, from 1960 till 1969, several witnesses spoke of this period being marked by armed clashes  between the Indonesian army and troops of the OPM  (Papuan Freedom Organisaation)  which were frequently followed up by military attacks aimed directly at  the civilian population and arbitrary arrests and acts of torture, and the arrest of  people regarded as being against integration with Indonesia.

During the second period, from 1969 to 1998,  the focus was on destroying the remnants of the OPM, who were still involved in guerilla actions in the forests, People living in the towns as well as in the villages  were kept under tight guard and were required to obtain permits from the army if they wanted to travel anywhere. Peoeple who had once been arrested  were often re-arrested  for no apparent reason.

In the third perid following ‘reformasi’ after the fall of Suharto, there were many pressures for changes to be made in the situation in Papua. However, civil actions by  students and political groups of people calling for independence  were dealt with by acts of violence.

[Translated by TAPOL]

 


Movement Against Freeport is set up by Papuan Students

Bintang Papua,28 October 2011

A number of UNCEN student organisations along with the KNPB, the
National Committee for West Papua, have announced the establishment of
a movement to oppose Freeport. They regard this company as having been
the cause of many problems in Papua. The students unfurled two banners,
one of which depicts the US flag intertwined with the logo of Freeport,

The new organisation is called People’s Movement Against Freeport Crimes
- Gerklaf. The co-ordinator of the new organisation is Fanny Kogoya and
Bovid Defa is the secretary.At the end of the ceremony, the US flag was
set on fire. This opposition movement regards the presence of Freeport
as having come about as the result of a political contract between the
USA and its allies in order to ensure the continuance of Papua within
the Unitary Republic of Indonesia.

The integration of Papua within Indonesia, according to wording on the
banners, goes back to 1963 and the New York Agreement of 1963, the
contract concluded with Freeport in 1967, the Act of Free Choice in 1969
and the Bunker Proposal [Bunker was the US diplomat who was involved in
the conclusion of the New York Agreement.].

Before the declaration was announced, the leaders of eight student
organisation delivered speeches. Fanny Kogoya said that the new movement
would press for the consolidation of the movement throughout the whole
of Papua, to strengthen opposition to Freeport.

They also said that any plans to renegotiate the contract with Freeport
should involve indigenous Papua people.[This is a reminder of the fact
that past contracts with Freeport have all been concluded with the
Indonesian government, without the presence of the representatives of
the Papuan people.]

The declaration that was read out by Bovid called on the one hand for
the expulsion of Freeport, while on the other hand saying that Freeport
should become the property of the Papuan people.The words on the banner
were:’The Papuan people must assert their sovereignty over their
natural resources.’


It’s Time To Take A Stand On Papua

via NewMatilda.com

21 Oct 2011

It’s Time To Take A Stand On Papua

By Richard Di Natale

rudd and sby

The violence in West Papua this week is deeply worrying – and raises uncomfortable foreign policy questions for the Australian government, writes Senator Richard Di Natale

Yesterday afternoon news reached my office that unarmed Papuans — women, young people, church leaders, academics, tribal elders — and at least one Australian citizen, were being shot at by the Indonesian security forces.

We now know that at least four people are confirmed dead, scores severely wounded and hundreds have been detained at the police station in Jayapura, the capital of West Papua.

We are deeply concerned that a number of these people including Forkorus Yaboisembut, the Chair of the Papuan Customary Council, were beaten or tortured. Their crime? Reading an aspirational declaration of independence and meeting to discuss how West Papuans might peacefully secure basic freedoms that you and I in Australia take for granted.

It is not my place to get into the politics of independence. That is for the Papuans to decide. It must be said, however, that until there is a free and fair vote of all eligible Papuan citizens in the territory, any claim by the Indonesian government that there is democracy in West Papua will be highly contested.

The fact is that the Australian government and many other western countries were party to a fraudulent transfer of sovereignty during the 1960s. That is not hyperbole. It is fact. Professor Pieter Drooglever and Dr John Saltford have separately documented the travesty of justice that unfolded in West Papua during the transfer from Dutch to Indonesia rule. Less than 0.01 per cent of the population participated in the so-called Act of Free Choice in 1969 and those that did were forced to do so.

But this week’s peaceful gathering at Zaccheus Field in Abepura was not about the past. It was about the kind of future that West Papuans want. The Papuans’ desire for freedom is irrepressible. Many of the civil and political rights Papuan people want — like freedom of expression, the release of political prisoners, an opening up of the province to foreign media, and respect of land rights — could be realised within the framework of the Indonesian state. By shooting and jailing Papuans who peacefully demand these legitimate rights, the Indonesian government is creating a bigger problem and fuelling political instability.

These events in our nearest neighbour raise serious questions back home. We are we providing funds, training and equipment to the Indonesian Military (Tentara Nasional Indonesia, or TNI) and the Police force, including the counter-terrorism police (Detachment 88). There is mounting evidence that they are anything but a positive force for human rights in the region. By furthering our close military ties, we become complicit in acts of repression by the TNI such as that unfolding in West Papua today.

The Australian government has been secretive with regards to these links. We don’t know exactly what kind of military assistance is being supplied to the TNI and the police. The Australian government needs to come clean about the extent and nature of our level of defence cooperation with Indonesia. The shootings in West Papua — and indeed in other places in Indonesia — raise serious questions about what, if anything, the Indonesian military and police have learnt from East Timor. And whether our own government has learned anything, either.

One thing we do know from East Timor is that when violence like this occurs and political rights are continually repressed you can guarantee that West Papuan resistance will continue and eventually become a mainstream issue. West Papua is on our doorstep. I hope we can be good neighbours.

We can not ignore West Papua any longer, and we need to send the strongest possible signal to the Indonesian government that violent repression of peaceful meetings, people merely exercising their right to free speech and assembly, is totally unacceptable.

Indonesia insists it is a democracy. Its constitution guarantees all its citizens the right to free speech and free assembly. We should hold them to this promise by immediately suspending all military assistance to and cooperation with Indonesia. There is no compelling evidence that on the balance of things Australia’s military assistance in Indonesia has improved human rights. I fear that our anti-terrorism support is sometimes being used to harasses and intimidate human rights defenders.

I want to be a part of a Parliament that can encourage the Indonesian government and the West Papuan people to find peaceful and democratic ways to address the root causes of conflict in West Papua. Guaranteeing free speech and releasing political prisoners would be a good first step. The President has promised an open dialogue, and he must keep that promise.

In the meantime those of us in Parliament need to seriously reflect on the kind of relationship we want with Indonesia. For the sake of our West Papuan neighbours, and for Australia’s long-held commitment to human rights, we must be prepared to take a bold stand.


Freeport Strikes Could Just Work

with New Matilda.com

7 Oct 2011

Freeport Strikes Could Just Work

By Alex Rayfield and Claudia King

Renewed strikes at West Papua‘s Grasberg mine have caught the Indonesian government off guard – and signal a shifting power balance in the province, report Alex Rayfield and Claudia King

Workers at the Freeport McMoRan mine in West Papua resumed strikes on 15 September after more than six weeks of unresolved negotiation talks with company management.

Increasing numbers of international media are covering the workers’ return to strikes, the first of which ended in July after eight days of work stoppage that halted production at the Grasberg mine.

However, national and international media have focused solely on worker demands for an increase in their hourly pay rate — ignoring the history of Freeport’s unfair and even illegal treatment of the mine’s so-called “non-staff” workers.

West Papuan workers receive the lowest wages ($1.50-$3.00) of any Freeport mining facility in the world, despite the fact that their work accounts for 95 per cent of the company’s consolidated gold production, and a substantial percentage of Freeport’s copper production. According to NASDAQ, Freeport has reaped astonishingly high profits from the low labour costs at the West Papuan site, enabling the company “margins in excess of 60 per cent in past years”.

Indonesian energy minister Darwin Zahedy Saleh estimates the Indonesian government alone could lose as much as $6.7 million in tax revenues, royalties and other payments from Freeport every day the strike carried on. Leaders of the All Indonesian Workers Union (freeport division) have said they will agree to a 25 per cent wage increase (down from demands for increases of up to $200 per hour) but Freeport management is so far refusing to lift their offer higher than 22 per cent.

However, media coverage of the strikes is missing Freeport’s long history of suppressing workers’ rights and union organising in Papua, not to mention the historical context and legacy of poor industrial relations out of which these strikes have emerged.

For one, Freeport McMoRan’s contract of work with the Indonesian government was signed prior to a scheduled referendum on West Papua’s political status. The UN had granted Indonesian temporary control over the region in 1963 but by the time the “Act of Free Choice” of 1969 was ready to proceed, only 1,022 West Papuans — less than 0.01 per cent of the population at the time — participated. In reality there was no referendum and no vote. Papuans were told by Indonesian military generals to vote for Indonesian rule or have “their tongues cut out”. Unsurprisingly, in this atmosphere of intimidation, 100 per cent choose to support West Papua’s incorporation.

But Freeport McMoRan, subsidiary PT Freeport Indonesia, did not even wait for this farce. The US Company made a deal with the Indonesian dictator Suharto, who was waging military operations in West Papua at the time. Freeport signed their first contract of work in 1967, two years before the 1969 Act of Free Choice. Under Suharto an authoritarian management style became entrenched. Dissent by workers and the local Papuan landowners were repressed harshly by the military.

Secondly, Indigenous West Papuans’ cultural, and economic livelihoods, which are dependent on a healthy natural environment, have been disrupted by Freeport’s arrival. It is no wonder that local communities resisted both violently and nonviolently to the company’s takeover of large swaths of their territory. In fact, Papuan resistance to Freeport has always been connected to Papuan resistance to Indonesia’s repressive “neocolonial” rule, which has now lasted over 50 years and according to Amnesty International resulted in the deaths of over 100,000 people.

Alongside West Papua’s pro-independence movement are workers, both native Papuans and Indonesian migrants, organising for fair pay, basic rights to organise without threats and intimidation from Freeport management, and the provision of equal facilities for local workers as their foreign worker counterparts, including: housing, health care, education, and pension funds.

They are demanding the freedom to organise as workers, to strike and demonstrate without threats, intimidation, or interference from Freeport management or local police, and without penalty of receiving no pay or the risk of losing their jobs. Freeport has now engaged global security contractors Securicor (now G4S), to break the strike.

Union leaders are maintaining vigilant documentation of violations by the various security apparatus. Since resuming the strike, workers have received messages from officials viaSMS, and visits to their family homes by Freeport staff and security who threaten to withhold pay and fire striking workers. Barracks near the mine’s entrance in Tembagapura were raided by officials, some whom were allegedly foreign nationals, who according to workers ordered miners to sign an agreement to end the strike.

The most disturbing incident was the attempted shooting of Union Chairman Sudiro while in his home on September 11, 2011 by “persons unknown”, a phrase in Indonesia that is often shorthand for the Indonesian military.

In a significant escalation of resistance, leaders of the Amungme and Kamoro tribes — the two customary landowner groups who own the land Freeport is mining — are supporting the striking workers. Senior tribal leaders Anis Natkime, Canisius Amareyau, Viktor Beanal and youth leaders Jecky Amisim and Donny Emayauta have written to Freeport CEO James Moffett and Freeport President Richard Adkerson to ask the company to agree to worker’s demands.

Failing this the tribal leaders threaten to close Freeport’s entire operations from the Amungme highlands of the 4,200 metre high Grasberg mine down to the Kamoro lowland port of Amapare. In doing so, these leaders are throwing off decades of fear and trauma brought about by repressive Indonesian military operations in support of Freeport. Abuses include the forced removal of villages and massacres by Indonesian military and police personnel who have never been held to account.

Although Indigenous communities living in and around the site of the Grasberg mine are supposed to receive a percentage of the profits from mining extraction as a part of an agreement known as the “1 per cent fund” community leaders claim the funds, which are routed through Jakarta, never reach the local community. The fund has also created conflict and competition between tribes.

While there is no guarantee that workers and community leaders will achieve their goals or address long-standing grievances, the worker strikes have caught Freeport and the government off guard, and awoken them to the reality that they are no longer uncontested power-holders in the region. Instead they will be forced to shift their practices one way or another, or else face serious economic and reputational losses.

The strike also threatens to have much wider repercussions than mere pay rises. West Papuan independence leaders in other parts of the country are preparing to organise the third national gathering of Papuan resistance groups. These leaders are watching the events at Freeport closely. When the three-day Third Papua Congress opens in Jayapura/Port Numbay on 16 October you can be sure that grievances around Freeport will be high on the agenda.


New Hope for West Papuan – or yet another False Dawn?

by Kim Peart

Is Indonesia about to lose its grip on the western half of New Guinea, a territory the size of France and ancient homeland of the Melanesian West Papuans?

Addressing questions at a press conference in New Zealand yesterday, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, made the following statement:

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at today's press conference in Auckland. Photo: Henry Yamo / PMC

“Again this issue should also be discussed at the Decolonisation Committee of the United Nations General Assembly. And when it comes, again, to whether you are an independent state or non self-governing territory, whatever, the human rights is an inalienable and fundamental principle of the United Nations. We will do all to ensure that the people in West Papua, their human rights should be respected.” [1]

 

To read of West Papua being raised in the context of the UN Decolonisation Committee by the Secretary-General is quite startling, for one specific reason: West Papua was removed from the list of colonised territories in 1969. This is unlike the situation in East Timor, which had not been removed from this list, becaming the trigger for their 1999 vote on self determination.

East Timor was a clear case of invasion in 1975, brutal suppression by a foreign power and liberation in a baptism of blood and fire in 1999. On the other hand, the West Papuan people were the victim of a brutal play of Realpolitiks during the Cold War.

After Indonesia gained their independence from the Dutch in 1949, Holland retained their territory in western New Guinea, preparing the indigenous population for independence. In 1957 Australia signed an agreement with the Netherlands to work toward the independence of the whole island of New Guinea and many Australians were involved on the ground in this preparation. [2]

In 1961 the Dutch administration formed a local parliament, including indigenous representatives and raised the West Papuan morning star flag, which flew along with the Dutch tri-colour across the territory and 1970 set as the year of independence. In this bright dawn of Papuan democracy, Australia helped to raised the hopes and expectations of the people of West Papua for freedom and self-determination.

Since 1949 Indonesia had been demanding control of the western half of New Guinea, even though it was, like the eastern half of the island, an ancient Papuan land. The Indonesian response was now to begin invading and a full-blown war with Indonesia appeared imminent, in which Australia would have fought along-side Papuans trained by the Dutch to defend their island homeland.

Wishing to avoid being drawn into a war with Indonesia, the United States intervened and told the Dutch to get out, Australia to butt out and gave the green light for Indonesia to take over half of New Guinea, as the new colonial master. This was deeply humiliating for the Netherlands and also Australia and brought into question the true independence of Australian foreign policy.

In this play of Realpolitiks, West Papuan lives, land and resources were used by Washington to buy a nominally pro-Western alliance with Indonesia and also access to Indonesian and Papuan resources. This action was nothing short of a slave trade and theft of land and property on an unimaginable scale.

The West Papuan morning star flag, which first officially flew in New Guinea in 1961, when Australia was working on the ground with the Dutch toward the independence of the whole island of New Guinea.

 

Indonesia became the new colonial power in New Guinea in 1963 and the atrocities began, with as many as 400,000 Papuans being killed in an ongoing genocide, which has pushed the Papuan aside to make way for Indonesian occupation and immigration. When a vote for self-determination was held in 1969, the United Nations allowed Indonesia to run it completely and even the UN observers on the ground only witnessed 20 percent of the vote.

Could it be called a vote, when 1025 selected men were lectured under the shadow of guns, before being invited to step over a line drawn in the dirt? An armed rebellion was going in in West Papua at the time. Wishing to avoid the prospect of war with Indonesia, most nations voted to allow West Papua to be incorporated into Indonesia and be removed from the list of colonial territories. A few newly independent African nations objected.

Would the United Nations get away with such a vote today. Such a bizarre process would not have been accepted in East Timor in 1999.

If the West Papuan people deserve natural justice, then they have a right to a genuine vote on self-determination. If Indonesia wishes to hold its head high as a truly democratic nation, then they will agree to this happening. If Australia wishes to regain honour with West Papua, then we will support the rights of the West Papuan people to self determination, just as we did the East Timorese and the Papuans of eastern New Guinea.

Sadly, all Australians have blood on our hands when it comes to West Papua, because we did not stand and demand justice, but went along with a brutal theft, slave trade and on-going atrocity Just across our northern border, many West Papuans have been shot on sight for raising the morning star flag, or sent to jail for 20 years.

Filep Karma was jailed for 15 years in 2004 for raising the West Papuan flag and when recently offered remission by the Indonesian Government, refused to accept this, saying, “he preferred to serve out his normal sentence and demanded the Indonesian Government to apologise to the Papuan people for all the atrocities it has caused.” [3]

For decades West Papuan supporters around the World have raised the question of the West Papuan right to self-determination and the voice of the indigenous Maori was added to this throng at the recent Pacific Island Forum being held in New Zealand, when the leader of the Mana Party, Hone Harawira, raised the West Papuan issue with Ban Ki-moon, declaring:

“Can I please ask that you support peaceful dialogue between the Indigenous People of West Papua and Indonesia, to put an end to the killings there and to find a strategy to get Indonesia out of a land that isn’t theirs.” [4]

1. United Nations 7 September 2011 (full transcript included below)

http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuff.asp?nid=1929

2. p. 882, ‘Current Notes on International Affairs – November 1957′,
Department of External Affairs, Canberra

3. Engage Media 29 August 2011

http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/numbaymedia/videos/Papuan%20Political%20Prisoners.mp4video.mp4/view

4. 3 News 8 September 2011


Statement from the West Papua solidarity gathering at Nga Wai o Horotiu, Tamaki Makaurau / Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand

from Peace Movement Aotearoa

 8 September 2011

We are very encouraged by the statement of the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, at a media conference in Auckland yesterday, 7 September 2011, that West Papua should be discussed by the Decolonisation Committee of the United Nations General Assembly.

Noting with appreciation the Secretary-General’s statement that “whether you are an independent state or a non-self-governing territory or whatever, the human rights is inalienable and a fundamental principle of the United Nations”, and “we will do all to ensure” that the human rights of the people of West Papua are respected, we therefore call on:

The United Nations Secretary General to act without delay, and:

  • appoint a Special Representative to investigate the situation in West Papua – to review the circumstances and outcome of the 1969 ‘Act of Free Choice’, as well as the contemporary situation; and
  • use his good offices to persuade the Indonesian government to allow free access to West Papua for media representatives from the international community and for non-governmental human rights organisations.

The Pacific Island Forum Leaders meeting in Auckland to act without delay, and:

  • send a fact-finding mission to West Papua to investigate the human rights situation;
  • support the West Papuan people in their call for peaceful dialogue with the Indonesian government;
  • grant observer status to West Papuan representatives who support the people of West Papua’s right of self-determination; and
  • recommend to the United Nations General Assembly that West Papua be put back on the agenda of the Decolonisation Committee.

The New Zealand government to act without delay, and:

  • play a role in mediating and beginning the process of peaceful dialogue between West Papuan representatives and the Indonesian government; and
  • cease all military ties with Indonesia until the human rights of the people of West Papua are respected.

Civil society to:

  • support the West Papuan call for peace and justice, and for a process of peaceful dialogue with the Indonesian government; and
  • take every opportunity to support West Papuans working for peace, justice, human rights and environmental sustainability.

Participating organisations: New Zealand non-governmental organisations Bicultural Desk of the Auckland Catholic Diocese, Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand, Christian World Service, CORSO Inc., Indonesia Human Rights Committee, Pax Christi Aotearoa New Zealand, Peace Movement Aotearoa, Philippine Migrant Centre, and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Aotearoa Section; New Zealand based Coalition for Democracy in Fiji; and Australian non-governmental organisations Australia West Papua Association (Sydney), Institute of Papuan Advocacy and Human Rights,  Medical Association for Prevention of War, Missionaries of the Sacred Heart Justice and Peace Centre (Australian Province), Pax Christi Australia and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Australia Section.

Photos from some of the West Papua solidarity actions in Auckland: are available at http://www.facebook.com/PeaceMovementAotearoa
Formatted copy of this statement: is available at http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/wp-ngos0911.pdf
 


KNPB Press Release: Papuan people don’t need welfare, they want a Referendum

The People of PAPUA DO NOT NEED WELFARE Measures, But a REFERENDUM Needs to Take Place Immediately!

West Papua National Committee [KNPB] -
Press Release London, August 25, 2011.

After the mass mobilization of the people of Papua on 2nd August 2011, and the conference of the International Lawyers on West Papua (ILWP) in Oxford England, conflicts and various cases of violence continue to occur in Papua. The events attracted reactions from various parties as they gave their boisterous opinions, statements, and speculative solutions, which do not touch the essence of the conflict in West Papua. The Government of the Republic of Indonesia and various other parties still consider that the conflict in Papua is a consequence of an accumulation of problems rooted in poverty and underdevelopment, as well as the mere result of the failure of special autonomy.

In that perspective, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia feels compelled to issue a variety of policies and development programs in Papua. On the one hand, there are also groups claiming to act on behalf of the people of Papua and that take advantage of the people’s movement to negotiate a solution for a peace dialogue in the Republic of Indonesia, while at the same time, the Government is advised to unfold a Presidential Unit to Accelerate the Development of Papua and West Papua (the so-called “UP4B”).

Whereas, in fact, the people of West Papua clearly and openly demand the respect of their right to self-determination through a referendum. In the heart of every Papuan, there is the burning and irresistible desire to determine their own fate, a principle by which they strongly wish to run their own affairs and to stand as an independent country, free from any occupation. That inner voice resounds in every statement, every speech, every pamphlet and banner, every single time thousands of Papuans come together in mass actions mediated by the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), every single time demonstrations continue to unfold in Papua.

We see and hear in every speech that they, the people of Papua, have never demanded welfare and development through the policies of the special autonomy, nor did they call for UP4B or any other unit or plan, as a guarantee of life within the framework of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia. They do not complain because they are hungry or poor, as they live on their own land which is extremely wealthy, and which continues to be exploited by colonialists and capitalists. The one thing they want is the restoration and respect of their political right, a right that was seized by the forced integration in Indonesia in 1962 and the implementation of the 1969 so-called Act of Free Choice. The people of Papua form a legal entity under international law and by virtue of this they have the right to freely determine their own political future, through the mechanism of a fair and democratic referendum.

Because of the above reasons, we assert that the Government of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) has been mistaken in its understanding of the political upheaval in West Papua that continues to smolder. Speculative assumptions should not be used as a solution in the making of policy. Because in the end, policies that are disproportional will worsen the image of the SBY Government: the trillions of money which continue to be poured into Papua for the realization of Special Autonomy projects, the UP4B, as well as the financing of the army (TNI) and the police, will only add to the already poor record of corruption and persistent human rights violations.

Out of all these policies, the people of Papua will not accept a policy which would be the result of a compromise. The Papuan people will continue with rebellion. And all the way through, the Papuan conflict will never be suppressed by manipulation policies presented under the label of accelerated development.

We convey to the government of Indonesia that they should immediately stop all these policies and immediately show the political will to open up democratic space for the people of West Papua through a referendum, because under international law, the 1969 Act of Free Choice was flawed.

Victor F. Yeimo
International Spokesperson for KNPB
papuaemergency@fpcn-global.org


=============

Victor F. Yeimo,
International Spokesperson for the West Papua National Committee [ KNPB ]
“Tidak ada kemenangan revolusioner tanpa teori revolusioner”



Supporting Accountability, Not Separatism, in Indonesia

Elaine Pearson

Deputy Asia Director, Human Rights Watch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elaine-pearson/supporting-accountability_b_932075.html

What do US Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Patrick Leahy, and Archbishop Desmond Tutu have in common? Their names appear among 248 foreign politicians, government officials, academics and journalists the Indonesian military views as “supporters of Papuan separatists.”

The list appears among 500 pages of Indonesian military documents, which recently came to light, that provide an insider view of the military’s surveillance operations in Papua. the country’s easternmost province.

Most of the documents concern the activities of Indonesia’s Special Forces, or Kopassus. The US should be paying close attention since a year ago it restored full military ties with Kopassus, which had been suspended for years because of the force’s notorious human rights record.

Officially, Kopassus operates in Papua to monitor and suppress the Papuan separatist movement, the Free Papua Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka, or OPM), which has been engaged in an armed struggle against the Indonesian government since the 1960s. The documents show, however, that the focus of Indonesian military operations in Papua goes far beyond the roughly 1,000 poorly armed rebels and includes a broad swathe of Papuan political, traditional, and religious leaders, and civil society groups who are spied on by a vast network of Papuan informants.

The documents show that the military believes it has more to fear from peaceful “political separatist” activity than from armed separatists. A 2007 Kopassus report states, “Current political activity in Papua is very dangerous compared to the activities of Papuan armed groups because their access already reaches abroad.”

The problem, as the documents make clear, is that pretty much anyone who challenges authority is automatically deemed a separatist. A couple of years ago I met a Papuan family from Jayapura, the provincial capital, who were pro-Indonesia. They told me how their son had taken a romantic stroll on a nearby beach with his girlfriend when they were set upon by eight naval officers, who beat him up and forced the pair to engage in humiliating sexual acts. The family tried to complain to the police and to the naval base to no avail. The youth’s cousin told me, “I am a Papuan woman and an Indonesian citizen. We are not separatists, but whenever anyone tries to stand up for their rights, they are called separatists – that’s how they silence us.”

The reports indicate that Kopassus believes nongovernmental organizations primarily work to discredit the Indonesian government and the armed forces by using the “human rights issue” to garner international condemnation of Indonesia’s military presence in Papua and to promote Papuan independence.

Human Rights Watch has long documented violations by Indonesian security forces in Papua. For years, the military denied the reports of human rights violations in Papua, even when faced with overwhelming evidence. This lack of accountability gives security forces a green light to commit abuses against the local population. However, the recent growth in cell phone video is making it more difficult to deny abuses.

Last year, a film uploaded to YouTube showed soldiers brutally torturing two farmers in Papua, kicking them, threatening one with a knife to his face, and repeatedly jabbing the other in the genitals with burning wood. A prolonged international outcry finally forced the military to take action. In the end, three soldiers got light sentences for “disobeying orders” rather than torture. It is unclear whether the military has discharged any of them. Two months earlier, soldiers from the same battalion shot and killed Rev. Kinderman Gire on the suspicion he was a separatist. At the trial, the defendants claimed Gire led them to believe he was a member of OPM and tried to grab a rifle from one of them, who then shot him in the chest. They dumped the body in a river, after trying to cut off his head. Last week a military tribunal convicted three soldiers, again only for “disobeying orders,” and sentenced them to six, seven and fifteen months in prison.

Indonesia’s military has heralded such light sentences for torture and killing as “appropriate.” Perhaps this is not surprising given a US Defense Department official characterized the prosecution of the video torture case as “progress.”

Last year, when resuming full military ties, then-US Defense Secretary Robert Gates described how Indonesia’s defense minister “publicly pledged to protect human rights and advance human rights accountability and committed to suspend from active duty military officials credibly accused of human rights abuses, remove from military service any member convicted of such abuses, and cooperate with the prosecution of any members of the military who have violated human rights.”

The revelations in the military documents don’t appear to have changed any thinking inside the Indonesian armed forcesResponding to recent articles about the documents, an Indonesian military spokesman told the Jakarta Post: “There is no such thing as a repressive or militant approach. What we do is always a welfare approach, where we help Papuans have better lives.”

And the old pattern of military denials continues. Where individual cases garner international attention, the Indonesian military has understood that all it needs to do to continue receiving US military funding is to slap soldiers on the wrist for “disobeying orders” rather than prosecute them for serious crimes. The US has conveyed multiple messages of disappointment to the Indonesian government and military on individual cases such as the video torture trial. But US unwillingness to impose significant consequences, such as suspending new military cooperation, tells the Indonesians and others that the US doesn’t insist on sticking to its standards.

The US should call on the Indonesian government to fully disclose all military tribunal cases involving alleged abuses against civilians, including prosecutions for “disobeying orders,” and provide transcripts to the public. Until the Indonesian government re-examines these cases, in line with the US Leahy law, which prevents the US from cooperating with abusive military units, the US government should not participate in joint endeavors with military personnel or units working in Papua. The US should also call on Indonesia’s military to stop viewing peaceful political activists as threats to national security and stop spying on them.

Both the US and Indonesia should recognize that people like Senator Leahy, who are named in the Papua military documents, were not seeking to challenge Indonesian sovereignty, but simply to defend the international standards for accountability that the Indonesian military is undermining.

Elaine Pearson is the deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. Follow Elaine Pearson onTwitter.


ROAD TO FREEDOM IN JAYAPURA – Video

by Frengky Making

The rally organised by the National Committee for West Papua (KNPB) on August 2 2011 was led by Mako Tabuni from KNPB. The protesters were on the streets the whole day. There were more than 10,000 people, from Sentani, Jayapura as well as students from Abepura. The peaceful rally was organised to support the seminar by International Lawyer for West Papua (ILWP), initiated by Benny Wenda in London, the UK, which looked into the history of the 1969′s People’s Act of Free Choice (PEPERA).

 07:05
video information
produced by Frengky Making
produced Aug 18, 2011

AlertNet: Indonesia re-thinks Papua food project – report

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/blogs/alertnet-news-blog/indonesia-re-thinks-papua-food-project-report

By Thin Lei Win

A member of the Koroway tribe walks up a ladder to his house at a forest near Merauke city in Indonesia's Papua province in this May 18, 2010 handout photo.A member of the Koroway tribe walks up a ladder to his house at a forest near Merauke city in Indonesia’s Papua province in this May 18, 2010 handout photo.

BANGKOK (AlertNet) –Indonesia’s government is considering moving its controversial food security project from Merauke, on the island of Papua, to East Kalimantan province, on Borneo island, due to lack of progress in the past two years, the Jakarta Globe reported.

Under MIFEE (Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate) plans, 1.63 million hectares of forest which form the basis of life for some 200,000 indigenous people in the Merauke area would be used to grow rice, palm oil, soya bean and corn among other crops.

Earlier this month, AlertNet reported criticism from rights activists that MIFEE threatens indigenous people and the forests and ecosystems in the area.

They also said the government has failed to sufficiently consult the native residents over the impact, which will include losing their customary lands, an influx of migrants from the rest of Indonesia and decreased quality of the ecosystems which people rely on for food and for their livelihood.

The minister of agriculture, Suswono, said on Monday that 200,000 hectares of land available in East Kalimantan could be used for agriculture, according to the Globe.

“The principle of the food estate is finding enough land for an agricultural zone. It doesn’t have to be in Papua,” the Globe quoted the minister as saying.

“[The East Kalimantan site] may not as big as Merauke, but it is more feasible. It has been two years since we floated the plan, but there has been no progress at all.”

Indonesia annually imports 2 million tonnes each of rice and soybean, and the nation needs to be able to feed its people without importing food, he added


Anatomy of an Occupation: The Indonesian Military in West Papua

Full Report is available for download and distribution as a pdf Anatomy of an Occupation: The Indonesian Military in West Papua

and the Secret report is available Here

By Jim Elmslie and Camellia Webb-Gannon, with Peter King

Report for the West Papua Project at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), The University of Sydney, August 2011

Executive Summary

This report deals with a series of Indonesian military documents that were passed to the West Papua Project (WPP) in early 2011.[1] The documents provide remarkable insights into how the Indonesian military (Tentara Nasional IndonesiaTNI), operates within the disputed territory of West Papua (disputed, that is, between the vast majority of Papuans and the Indonesian government), and how they view West Papuan civil society. The documents reveal the names and activities of Indonesian intelligence agents; describe how traditional Papuan communities are monitored; and include a detailed analysis of both the West Papuan armed guerrilla groups and the non-violent civil society organisations which promote self-determination. Identifying so many West Papuan leaders and others as “separatists”, these documents effectively show that support for independence is widespread and surprisingly well organised. West Papuans have long complained of living under an Indonesian military “occupation” and these documents go a long way to Anatomy of an Occupation: The Indonesian Military in West Papuasubstantiating this claim.

The authors of this report have sought to verify information contained in the documents where possible. Much of this information on individuals and Papuan organisations is already well known, although presented here more comprehensively in some respects than ever before. We can therefore be relatively confident that the documents are not fabricated or deliberately misleading, although they do contain inaccuracies, omissions and many obvious examples of false or misleading precision. Names of Indonesian intelligence agents, both Papuan and non-Papuan, are impossible to verify and have been left out of our report. We do believe, however, that the general modus operandi revealed in the documents is a fair representation of how the Indonesian military operates. As many diverse and disputed claims are made about the conflict in West Papua by the Indonesian and other governments, by international commentators and by the Papuans themselves, we believe that this information should be in the public sphere to increase understanding of this little-known, but intense, bitter and long-standing conflict.

The report is split into two sections. The first deals with the 97 slide PowerPoint presentation entitled, Anatomy of Papuan Separatists. The presentation itself can be viewed at http://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/research/west_papua_project.shtml. This section acts as a running commentary on the slide show, explaining and contextualising what is an intriguing exposition of the West Papuan armed liberation movement and its non-violent civilian counterpart. The forensic details of the Anatomy leave the reader in no doubt as to the level of military scrutiny under which the Papuans live. It shows just how seriously the Indonesian forces take the threat of “separatism”, especially its attempts to reach out to an international audience. The presentation could accurately be renamed as an Anatomy of the Papuan Occupation.

The second section deals with an assortment of other leaked documents that flesh out the day-to-day reality of living under Indonesian occupation. In both images and text the daily tasks of security force members are outlined as they maintain a close surveillance on communities of traditional Papuans. Details of Indonesian agents  – who they are, where they work, what information they can provide – are listed as small links in the heavy chain mesh of an occupation which has at its core the modern practice of “psychological warfare”, PSYOPS. This pernicious system of social control has created a pervasive atmosphere of terror amongst the Papuan population as their lives are manipulated by state actions and threatened with “black operations”. Unsolved, indeed uninvestigated, killings, beatings and rapes occur against a background of a rapidly changing demography as hundreds of thousands of non-Papuan Indonesians move into the province. Predominantly Muslim, the newcomers are adding another layer of tension and fear, as the Muslim-Christian divide widens – taking its cue from the threatened growth of radical Islam in Java and elsewhere.

PSYOPS, as practiced in West Papua, is analysed initially from a general perspective and then from the personal experience of several individual Papuans. As a tool of social control it has been effective in dividing the Papuan people, some of whom now form a Papuan elite that has prospered economically under the bureaucratic “reforms” enacted by the Indonesian government, particularly the creation of two provinces and some 23 new administrative regencies in Papua. However, these documents show that, despite PSYOPS and divide-and-rule administrative policies, there is a high degree of cohesion and unity amongst the West Papuan nationalist majority. Indeed, looking at the Papuan individuals identified in these documents it can be seen that West Papuan nationalism is spread throughout civil society, in the churches, youth groups, customary bodies and political organisations. Far from the desire for self-determination dying out, the younger generation of Papuan leaders is now stridently demanding the rights to which they are entitled by Indonesian law, albeit increasingly as a non-violent, civil resistance movement.

These documents show that Indonesian rule over West Papua can be characterised as an ongoing military/police occupation. Inevitably this involves the systematic infliction of human rights abuses on a civilian population. Our report concludes that Australia should not be co-operating as it does with the TNI elite special forces, Kopassus, because it directly implicates the Australian army and taxpayer in the suffering of the Papuan people. And all Australian military aid to Indonesia should be seriously reconsidered while the military dominated system of occupation persists in Papua. The political and administrative reforms that have benefited so much of Indonesia since 1998 need to be properly implemented in West Papua. Until then West Papua will remain a blight on Indonesia’s international reputation and a place of suffering for its indigenous Melanesian population.


[1] The West Papua Project, at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, The University of Sydney, has operated since 2000 as an academic think tank and research center examining the conflict in West Papua between the indigenous Melanesian people and the Indonesian state and its security forces. During this period the WPP has held many conferences, workshops and briefings, and its affiliates have produced a wide range of publications including books, scholarly articles and reports.

Introduction

This report is based on a series of documents recently leaked into the public domain that relate to military and intelligence operations in West Papua.[1] The most important is entitled Anatomy of Papuan Separatists and it gives observers unprecedented insight into how the Indonesian army views the situation there. Organised as a confidential briefing document, presumably for senior Indonesian military, political and government figures, it clarifies a situation that is generally regarded as opaque. Other documents relate to the use of Papuan and non-Papuan intelligence agents by the TNI and efforts by soldiers to socialise with Papuan village communities (these documents are analysed in the second section of this report). While the Indonesian government bans foreign journalists and researchers from Papua’s two provinces, now confusingly named Papua and West Papua, in an attempt to block information on the situation from reaching the outside world, here is a case where the Indonesians themselves are providing a frank and comprehensive assessment. While undated, the Anatomy document’s reference to US President Barack Obama suggests it was written, or at least finished, sometime after his election on November 4, 2008.

Anatomy of Papuan Separatists is an extraordinary document in the form of an extended PowerPoint presentation. Produced by the TNI,[2] it is a systematic and detailed analysis of the West Papuan political landscape, mapping who the various actors are and where they fit into a larger picture. Almost every leading West Papuan political and military player is included in this analysis – leaving one with the distinct impression that there is no other game in town except “separatism”. In fact the goal for most of the West Papuan leaders in this analysis is independence, which implies that this is also the desired outcome for the overwhelming majority of the Papuan people. So this document is both a study in “separatism” and a blueprint for a military occupation meant to combat that separatism. Separatism is shown to be not a rare sentiment held by the few, but rather the glue which binds together the West Papuan ethnic and political consciousness. We are given a valuable insight into how West Papua and its Indonesian occupation actually work.

The Anatomy file comprises 97 slides and methodically works through the various ways in which the West Papuans confront the Indonesian state. In broad terms the conflict is split between military and political spheres, with some overlap. Both of these spheres are explored in remarkably frank detail. The military analysis of the “separatist” movement is the most detailed ever undertaken, or at least revealed publicly, and shows just how extensive the armed opposition to Indonesian rule is. The Anatomy document provides details of 31 armed groups of the TPN (Tentara Pembebasan Nasional –the National Liberation Army), the military wing of the OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka—the Free Papua Movement) that are spread right across the two provinces (Papua and Papua Barat) that constitute the region referred to collectively in this report as West Papua. Rather than being the ragtag bunch of malcontents – which the OPM/TPN are usually portrayed as — this Anatomy shows them to be a relatively cohesive and deeply entrenched resistance army, highly committed to achieving their goal of independence from Indonesia, even though the Anatomy often seems to imply that all the dozens of groups it identifies across a 40 year period are still functioning pretty much as when first identified.

Before proceeding with analysis of the document we have three general comments.

First, we wish to highlight the pervasiveness of the phenomenon of “separatism” as seen from the (Indonesian military) author’s point of view. Demands for dialogue; the “return” of Special Autonomy to Jakarta, and for  demilitarisation, improved human rights, an end to discrimination, economic marginalisation and environmental devastation in West Papua — all amount to only “separatism” in the Anatomy. And separatism is viewed as a legitimate thing for the military to attack; separatists are enemies of the Indonesian state, and therefore enemies of the military and the police. There is no attempt to understand where this sentiment comes from, just to identify its existence to be targeted for destruction. That there are so many separatists does not seem to faze the author(s) of the Anatomy; just to reinforce his (their) sense of mission.

There is little discussion of those Papuans who are not separatists. There are undoubtedly Papuans who have thrown in their lot with Indonesia, one of whom is identified in the Anatomy, Franzalbert Joku. He is the only person of the hundreds listed who has “returned to Indonesia”. Joku is a well-known former independence activist who has given up the struggle as a hopeless cause and works hard to convince other “separatists” to do the same. Later in this report we will explore Joku’s views further as well as those of other prominent Papuans who have eschewed the struggle for freedom.

Second, it is noteworthy that there are so many “separatists” identified in the Anatomy, and that they include so many of the most prominent people from the three generations since the Indonesian takeover of Papua in 1962-3 is striking. While most outside observers dismiss the chance of achieving independence as remote if not impossible, given the power and determination of the Indonesian state and the comparative weakness of the Papuans, many Papuans do not. They are fully committed to the struggle. In fact these documents show that the younger generation, those in their 20s and 30s, are as committed as the older generations. Together the Papuans listed in this document represent most of the current leading figures in West Papuan society. The Anatomy shows how seriously the Indonesian state and military consider the threat of separatism, and indeed it places the people named under grave threat of targeted assassination. Some of them have indeed already been killed since the publication of the document (for instance OPM leader Kelly Kwalik). This has led some informed readers of the Anatomy to describe it as a “hit list” of people targeted for removal.

Thirdly, this document tells us how the Indonesian military views the West Papuan political structure. To an outside observer it is hard to grasp how all the multiple military, social and political Papuan groups relate to each other. Here this complex situation is laid out with surprising clarity: there are traceable lines of authority and engagement — even between various “factions” and geographically isolated groups. One reason that Jakarta has given for refusing to negotiate with the West Papuans over the myriad problems that beset the province is that “we do not know who to negotiate with”.[3] This document undermines that pretext.


[1] These documents have been referred to in a blog site on the internet dated January 30, 2011 at www.nokenlama.blogspot.com/2011/01/kisah-tentang-kekerasan-seksual.html in an entry entitled “Story About Sexual Violence in West Papua [By] Army Personnel”, which refers to “an article titled An Anatomy of Separatists in Papua, [by] Maj. D. Arm Fence”.  The article was published by the Secretariat for Justice and Peace, Archdiocese Merauke, Papua. Some others of these documents have been quoted previously (see allannairn.com), although many appear to be new, or at least to have received no public analysis; hence this report.

[2] The author of the Anatomy document is named as Major Arm Fence D Marani.

[3] Private conversation with senior Indonesian officials accompanying President Yudhoyono on his visit to Australia, Sydney University, 8 March, 2010.


Strike pressures PT Freeport Indonesia into serious negotiations

Alex Rayfield and Claudia King11 August 201

Indigenous Papuans are waging a four-decade long nonviolent struggle for independence from Indonesia. At the heart of Papuan grievances lies Freeport, the world’s largest gold and copper mine, owned and operated by US based company Freeport McMoRan and their Indonesian subsidiary PT Freeport Indonesia.

Perched on the western rim of the Melanesian Pacific, adjacent to independent Papua New Guinea is West Papua. Here, in a land so diverse that you can stand on a tropical glacier 15,000 feet high and peer down on the equator, indigenous Papuans are waging a four-decade long nonviolent struggle for independence from Indonesia. At the heart of Papuan grievances lies Freeport, the world’s largest gold and copper mine, owned and operated by US based company Freeport McMoRan and their Indonesian subsidiary PT Freeport Indonesia.

Recently trouble at the mine flared up again, as around 12,000 Indonesian and Papuan Mine workers and contractors went on strike, joined by local indigenous leaders. Walking off a job has never been so hard, Yan Ampnir told us. When he decided to join the mine workers’ strike in the remote Indonesian province of Papua, it was not a simple case of heading out the gate and driving home to his family. It involved a gruelling 40-mile trek down a roller-coaster road that plunges 8,400 feet down from the vertiginous cloud-cloaked mountain walls of Tembagapura, the remote mine base camp, to the sprawling swamp lowlands of Timika.


SPSI collection. Freeport Mine.

Tembagapura is a company town. The only people who live there are mine workers. After long shifts in the Grasberg open pit or in the underground mine, workers are bussed on four-wheel drive trucks back to Timika or the US lookalike suburb of Kuala Kencana, replete with shopping malls, manicured lawns and street lights, all carved out of the middle of the jungle. So, when the company refused to bus the workers outside the Indonesian military- guarded mine area, Ampnir and his compatriots picked up their bags and started walking.

Seventeen hours later the first group arrived in Timika; tired, wet, cold and hungry. Eight days later the strike ended. In the process some 12,000 mine workers (of a total workforce of 23,000) halted production at the world’s largest gold and copper mine, inflicting a loss of USD$95,000 per day on US-based Freeport McMoRan, Indonesian subsidiary PT Freeport Indonesia and their Anglo Australian partner, Rio Tinto.

After a quick search on the Internet, Albar Sabang, the local union branch secretary, hands us an excel spreadsheet. On it is a list of pay scales. Sabang is a mechanic who fixes heavy machinery like bulldozers and excavators. He has worked for PT Freeport Indonesia since 1994 and earns $3.00 per hour. He is one of the highest paid local employees out of a group PTFI calls “non-staff”. Others earn as little as $1.80 per hour, a wage that rose 98% after a similar workers strike in April 2007.

Sudiro (his only name) is a softly spoken tall Javanese man, unassuming in person. He is the local SPSI (Seluruh Pekerja Serikat Indondesia – or All Indonesian Workers Union) chair of the Freeport Mine Workers Union, an affiliate with the national SPSI network. Recently sacked by PT Freeport Indonesia for organising workers, he only just got his job back. “Of all the Freeport mines”, Sudiro tells us, “PT Freeport Indonesia is the most profitable. It has the lowest production costs. But workers are paid the lowest salaries. We are even paid less than Freeport mine workers in Mongolia and the Democratic Republic of Congo. That’s not right.”

A history of local grievances 

Freeport is emblematic of much that is wrong in West Papua.

The company’s Contract of Work was signed in 1967, two years before the Act of Free Choice was concluded, a referendum that was supposed to give the indigenous West Papuans a chance to say whether they wanted to be independent or part of Indonesia. In fact, there was no vote. Instead, 1,022 West Papuans, less than 0.01% of the population, were corralled into camps and told to “vote” for integration with Indonesia or have “their tongues cut out”. But it was not just the Indonesian government that consented to democratic fraud writ large; the US, Australian and European governments were also not prepared to contest the election or risk stability in the region for what one US Embassy source at the time called a handful of “Stone-Age illiterate tribal groups”.


SPSI collection.Strike Leaving Tembagapura.

The biggest prize of all was Freeport. Suharto declared the company a national asset and instructed the military to guard the mine, which led to a long history of human rights violations, including un-investigated mass killings, theft of Papuan land and massive environmental degradation, all of which has led to ongoing violent and nonviolent resistance.

This was the era before the notion of “free, prior, and informed consent” became best practice for extractive industries. According to local indigenous landowners, they still feel that they have not been consulted or their rights respected.

As the Amungme people’s sacred mountain is consumed, tailings are dumped in the Ajkwa River at the rate of 200,000 tons a day. The result: over 30,000 hectares of rainforest have been wiped out and huge levee banks built to stop Timika from being smothered by sludge waste. In the process, Freeport became a lightning rod for all Papuan grievances.

Although the company tried to respond to local indigenous West Papuan grievances by hiring Papuan staff and redirecting 1% of the profits to support members of the local seven tribes, new problems continue to be added on top of old, unresolved issues. The local tribes (a number of whom work in the mine) and Freeport mine workers from elsewhere bring in massive profits for the company. They work under extreme conditions at high altitude but feel like they have little stake in the company and few worker benefits.

“We are not valued as human beings. We are treated as an instrument of the company. Our goal is to get to a position where we are treated as human” says Sudiro.

According to miners interviewed in July 2011, many workers are forced to take out bank loans to pay for basic needs and to support their families. After retirement, some must seek alternative types of income. Yet when workers attempt to raise these issues with Freeport management, they have received warning letters from them in return.

“It seems like the company sees us as the troublemakers. But,” says Sudiro, referring to workers’ contributions to gold and copper production, “we are the solution-makers.”

SPSI finds its teeth 

SPSI PT Freeport Indonesia is one local branch of the national labour union federation of Indonesia. The organization has represented PTFI mine workers in 16 Collective Labor Agreements (CLA) dating back to 1977. But until recently it functioned as little more than a rubber stamp for company policies.

Freeport has a history of suppressing workers’ rights and union organizing. Under Suharto, independent labour organising was prohibited. Those that tried were often killed or spent years in jail. But over the past decade, as political space has slowly opened up, Sudiro and other workers have been quietly organizing. But because of the closed-off nature of West Papua, they have done so through exchanges on the Internet, educating themselves on best practice and lessons learned from unions in other parts of the world. “We particularly admired the quiet, peaceful way Japanese workers raised their grievances,” said Sudiro.


SPSI collection. Strike Congregate at Tembagapura.

SPSI PT Freeport Indonesia’s mission and objectives are limited to workers’ rights and their tactics are exclusively nonviolent. But they continue to be associated with violence and separatism. “We use a peaceful way. We don’t want to get into the political arena, this is not our area. We just want to struggle for our rights, and to have the same rights as workers elsewhere.”

Campaigns to educate fellow mine workers about their rights and the role of unions in protecting workers seem to be paying off. Reflecting on worker participation in the recent strike, Sudiro said, “The workers finally opened their eyes and minds to the situation. The company cannot stop this. We have woken up. We will never go back to how we were treated before the strike.”

Nevertheless, SPSI Freeport members continue to face threats and intimidation from the company. When two of the union members travelled to Jayapura to seek advice from Papuan leaders, they were followed by Indonesian security forces who have long been paid by Freeport to guard the mine.

“The company does not like us organizing for workers’ rights, but we are not doing anything wrong. The strike is an action that is guaranteed by the law. Indonesia is a member of the ILO and the ILO is very clear. We have the right to form a union and we have done so according to Indonesian law” says Sudiro.

Article 104 (1) of Indonesian National Law Number 13, 2003 explicitly states: “Every worker/ labourer has the right to form and become a member of a trade/ labour union.”

The decision to strike 

The company has utilized a range of “dirty” tactics to avoid dealing with SPSI demands over wages and conditions. One of the most galling for mineworkers was the creation of a ‘new’ union aimed at pushing out SPSI’s union. The new union was created in response to SPSI Freeport mineworkers’ agitation around wages and conditions.

At the same time the company declared the SPSI Freeport Mine Workers Union – an organisation that has grown from a low of 4,000 to 8,200 members – illegal, and promptly fired six of the leadership including Sudiro himself. The only problem was this ‘union’ had no members. Its board was appointed by Nur Hadiah, a lawyer based in Jayapura, in violation of SPSI regulations. “It was a completely fake union” said Sudiro.

The reaction from the workers? An overwhelming decision from all of the 254 union representatives to strike and nearly 100% participation from SPSI Freeport union members. “We were up against a wall. We had no other choice,” Sudiro said.

But the strike was not just about wages. “We wanted the company to recognise the union, the right to freely organise, and to reinstate the six SPSI Union leaders who were dismissed by Freeport for conducting union business” said Sudiro.

 

SPSI collection. A female striker
After more than a week of strikes and continuous demonstrations, on the evening of July 11 PT Freeport Indonesia gave in to SPSI’s

demands. They reinstated the union leaders without any deduction in salary, agreed to pay the wages of all striking workers for the duration of the strike, agreed to recognise SPSI Freeport Mine Workers Union as the sole legal representative of Freeport mine workers and also agreed to enter into Collective Labor Agreement negotiations. Those negotiations opened Wednesday July 20 at the Freeport-owned Hotel Rimba Papua in Timika. They are still continuing and according to Company sources are not expected to finish until 19 August. Both workers and management are remaining tight-lipped about their progress.

The seven tribes

The current  (seventeenth) Collective Labor Agreement negotiations are different. They are not only about wages and conditions. They also concern the company’s relationship with local landowners, the Amungme and Kamoro, as well as five other major highland tribes – the Dani, Moni, Damal, Mee/Ekari and Nduga.

Amungme tribal elder Hengky Uamang speaks to us at one of the SPSI union leaders’ rented duplex house in the back lanes of Timika. His voice is quiet and one of his compatriots translates from Amungme into Indonesian so that we can understand what he is saying. His message is simple and profound.

“My heart is broken. It is as if we are not human beings but a piece of gold to be consumed. I am gold but I get no benefit.” Tears slowly roll down his face.

Others in the crowded living room become angry. “Does Moffet (the US Chair of Freeport McMoRan) have no shame?” Jecky Amisim rhetorically asks. “Does he not fear God? Don’t you people in America know that if you come to someone’s place and want to take something, you have to ask first?”

The seven tribal leaders nod in agreement. Sudiro tells us: “If these negotiations fail, we will see it as a death of democracy.”

“If Moffett and Armando Mahler (the president of PT Freeport Indonesia) can’t help us, if the wealth of these mountains do not bring a benefit to us the local tribes, the workers and the people of Papua,” says Mr. Amisim, “then it is better we just kick this company out.”

The strike may be over,  but as union and management begin month-long negotiations over their biannual Collective Labour Agreement, the company continues to face the possibility of continued disruption from disgruntled workers and restive landowners seeking significant changes after years of opposition to Freeport mining.

“This article was originally published in the independent online magazine www.opendemocracy.net

About the authors
Alex Rayfield is a freelance journalist based in Timika
Claudia King is a freelance journalist reporting from Timika



Imparsial: Only a state can challenge the Act of Free Choice

Benny Wenda at the IPWP launch

Image via Wikipedia

>Bintang Papua, 10 August 2011
[A very lengthy report, abridged in translation by TAPOL]

Only a state can challenge the Act of Free Choice

Jayapura: Although no official report has yet been received about the
results of the International Laywers for West Papua conference in Oxford
on 2 August with regard to challenging the 1969 Act of Free Choice
(pepera) at the International Court of Justice, Imparsial-Jakarta says
that a challenge can only be successful if it is made by a state, not
by an organisation like ILWP.

Poengki Indarti, the executive director of Imparsial, an organisation
that frequently draws attention to the activities of the Indonesian
military in West Papua as well as to the human rights situation there,
said that the ILWP is not a state and furthermore, pepera was
legitimised by the United Nations while virtually all countries
recognise that West Papua is part of NKRI, the Unitary State of the
Republic of Indonesia.

She said that what Benny Wenda is trying to do via the ILWP and the
IPWP is to win as much support as possible from countries around the
world which show an interest in West Papua’s secession from Indonesia.
However, this is very difficult indeed because all countries with the
exception of Vanuatu support the incorporation of West Papua into
Indonesia. ‘What they are trying to do is get the support of some
hopefully sympathetic states. I dont think people should overact to the
decisions adopted by the ILWP conference,’ she said.

However, Yan Christian Warinussy, executive director of Papua-based
human rights NGO, LP3BH, said that any challenge with regard to ‘legal
standing’ would depend on the interpretation of the judge before whom
the case is brought. He said: ‘As regards any efforts to challenge
pepera that may be made by the ILWP, anyone and in particular the
Papuan people could submit a challenge because it relates to their
rights as Papuans . If in the opinion of the judge before whom the case
is brought, an organisation such as the ILWP has been granted the
necessary powers by the Papuan people, the case can of course be
accepted.’ He went on to say that it would be much more strategic for
the challenge to be made first of all at the national level because
Indonesia has its own legal system and it is not certain that a
decision would be adopted by the International Court in a case
connected with a sovereign state like Indonesia.

‘Therefore, I would press for the challenge to be made within the
Indonesian legal system which could be done by the Papuan Customary
Council (Dewan Adat Papua) or another organisation that has been granted
the necessary powers,’ said Warinussy who received the John Humphrey
human rights award in 2005.

The Imparsial director-general said that she thinks that all
stakeholders in Papua should focus primarily on peaceful endeavours and
dialogue to find a ‘middle way’. If everyone sticks to their own
opinion, the ones whose interests are damaged are the Papuan people who
do not have a very good understanding of political affairs. (sic).
Meanwhile, she drew attention to the long drawn out Papuan problem with
many actions being taken about the unsatisfactory implementation of
OTSUS (the special autonomy law), many acts of violence that have
resulted in civilian lives being lost, as well as actions calling for
independence, all of which point to the lack any serious attention from
the central and provincial governments. She said that the Indonesian
government is half-hearted about Papua and seems to want conditions in
Papua to stay the same as they are now. ‘We all hope to see the
government pay serious attention to Papua.’ She said it seems as though
the government just wants to keep the conflict in Papua going. It shows
no interest in enacting regulations or laws and seems to be acting at
cross purposes, with the government frequently pursuing the repressive
approach while the military have said that that they have made drastic
changes in the way they handle Papua. However, people feel that the
situation is no different from what it was in the past.

‘In the many cases of violence, it is the task of the police to
investigate who was responsible but nothing concrete has happened, while
Papuans are asking whether it was the real OPM or a fictional OPM that
certain state institutions are keeping alive. Everyone is looking to
the government to explain things because as yet the Papuan question
has not been resolved whereas the government is not serious about
solving it.

A case in point is what Benny Wenda is doing in the UK. Although Poengky
Indarti has checked the Interpol list of fugitives and saw that he is a
fugitive registered with Interpol, he is nevertheless free to seek
support overseas while no action is taken against him either by the
Indonesian government or the Indonesian police. The government is
deliberately keeping the Papuan problem hanging in the air, from the
polemics about the failure of OTSUS, to the breaches of security and the
shooting incidents as well as the calls for independence that have
caused much anxiety among the civilian population, whereas the
government still doesnt regard Papua as a problem that is in need of
solution.


The legal road for West Papua: a dead-end?

The legal road for West Papua: a dead-end?

 

Jason MacLeod[1] and Brian Martin[2]

 

Legal actions might assist the West Papuan struggle for freedom, but this approach is extremely difficult and entails significant risks. Using the courts plays to the opponents’ strengths: it may not do much to erode Indonesian rule in West Papua, and risks reinforcing it. Priority needs to be put on nonviolent strategies involving large numbers of ordinary people, particularly inside West Papua.

Risks of a legal strategy

Firstly, using legal channels requires considerable money and resources and thus restricts involvement by ordinary people. Even with high profile pro-bono support, any legal case will be extremely expensive. Although West Papua is rich in natural resources, the movement is short on cash. The Indonesian government will do all it can to delay and derail the case going to court, both in Indonesia and internationally. If the case does make its way to the courts, the Indonesian government will spare no expense in fighting it. Legal battles are not won solely by money, but it definitely helps. In court, the movement will be fighting an opponent with more money and resources.

Secondly, a legal strategy favours the powerful. In terms of access to people of influence on the world stage, the Indonesian government has more power than the movement. Government power is not the only kind of power operating, but it is worth factoring the Indonesian government’s considerable international influence into an assessment of whether to pursue legal actions or how such a strategy might be strengthened.

Thirdly, there are technical legal issues. There is a risk that the case might never be heard simply because the court accepts objections such as that the plaintiffs are mischievous and or the court does not have jurisdiction. Even if the case does get to an international court there is no guarantee the challenge will be successful. A failure to win the case, even on technical grounds, could undermine the cause for self-determination by giving a legal stamp of approval to the Act of Free Choice.

Fourthly, even if the case is successful, there is no guarantee of any subsequent political change. This is the lesson from many other struggles relying on courts and official bodies.

Consider the United Nations. There have been numerous resolutions by the UN General Assembly and Human Rights Commission condemning the Indonesian government’s invasion of East Timor and the subsequent human rights violations committed under the occupation. All were ignored by the Indonesian government, some for decades.

In the 1990s, the International Court of Justice was asked to rule on the legality of nuclear weapons under international law. The court gave an opinion, some parts of which supported the goals of anti-nuclear campaigners. However, no government with nuclear weapons took any substantial action, such as moving to disarm, in response to the court opinions.

The situation is similar in West Papua. The Indonesian government’s occupation is clearly illegal, as Saltford[3] and Drooglever[4] have shown convincingly. The Indonesian Government will be unlikely to give up its rule of West Papua just because an international court rules the occupation illegal.

Finally, a legal strategy could act as a dampener on dissent inside West Papua. It could reinforce the belief that Papuans themselves don’t have to actively struggle for their own liberation, because powerful outsiders will save them.

Courts are examples of “official channels” – and they do not work well when dealing with powerful perpetrators, such as governments. People often believe that official channels provide justice, yet they heavily favour those with more money and power. Official channels are usually very slow, can be expensive, and restrict opportunities for non-experts to participate. Issues are taken out of the public domain and moved it to more restrictive arenas, such as courts, that are usually less sympathetic. Even when official channels come up with good recommendations, governments often do not act on them.[5]

The case of West Papua is essentially about power politics and vested economic interests. Therefore, winning in the court of public opinion (in other words building a powerful social movement) and raising the political and economic costs of the Indonesian government’s continued occupation will be more decisive than a legal victory. However, the two strategies could be complementary.

 

Strengthening a legal case through building a people’s movement

In the past 25 years, international boundaries have been dramatically redrawn and numerous countries have become independent. On 9 July 2011, South Sudan became the world’s newest state. Before that Kosovo and East Timor became independent. During the late 1980s and early 1990s several republics of the former Soviet Union also became independent. The overwhelming majority – with the exception of Romania – did so through nonviolent means. Some, like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, won national liberation even though half their population was made up of Russian immigrants. What was decisive about all these movements was that they undermined the occupiers’ legitimacy and disrupted their rule. That outcome can be achieved through violent or nonviolent action.

By nonviolent action we mean sustained, unarmed and extra-parliamentary collective action in the pursuit of political and social goals. Nonviolent action has been used in dozens of countries. Also called people power or civil resistance, nonviolent campaigns have ousted dictators, resisted coups and been effective in challenging racism, exploitation and other injustices.[6]

The history of the international movement against nuclear weapons shows that governments have been most constrained when protest is vigorous. When protest has waned, military races have accelerated.[7]

Recent research into  self-determination struggles waged between 1900 and 2006 shows that struggles for independence or national liberation and territory are very difficult to win, even more difficult than removing a dictator like Suharto or Mubarak. Chenoweth and Stephan compared whether armed or nonviolent struggle was more likely to produce self-determination outcomes (like independence). They found that violent and nonviolent struggles had roughly equal chances of succeeding – about 25%.[8]

With equal odds of success, nonviolent struggle is definitely more desirable: it causes less loss of life, allows for greater participation of ordinary people, and lays the basis for a free and open society after independence. In contrast armed struggle results in higher casualties, less participation and a greater likelihood of post-independence repression. Mixing armed and nonviolent struggle tends to contaminate the gains won by nonviolent struggle.

So what helps these movements succeed? Specifically, what might improve the prospects of the West Papuan freedom movement? Here are some possibilities that could be part of a nonviolent struggle.

  1. Make the violence of the Indonesian government and the nonviolent resistance of the Papuans visible to transnational networks that mobilise on behalf of Papuans.
  2. Expose the failure of governance in West Papua by withdrawing support for, or co-opting, state institutions like the Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP), Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua (DPRP – the two Provincial parliaments in Papua Province and Papua Barat Province), local parliaments (DPRD – Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah) and the civil service.
  3. Use nonviolent sanctions to impose economic and reputational costs on transnational corporations in West Papua.
  4. Take the struggle to mainstream Indonesia and the societies of the Indonesian government’s elite allies, for example Australian and British governments and corporations.
  5. Coordinate with transnational activist networks to alter the Indonesian government’s willingness to maintain the occupation and to affect its capability to do so.

When it comes to challenging the Indonesian government’s legitimacy in West Papua, it is also vitally important that local Papuan and transnational solidarity movements continue to expose not only the historical denial of self-determination but also the ongoing failure of governance. This includes collecting and publicising the testimonies of surviving participants in the Act of Free Choice, participating in strikes, boycotts, noncooperation with Special Autonomy, establishing autonomous cultural, religious, economic and political institutions and other forms of mass based nonviolent challenges to Indonesian rule. Student and youth groups in particular have taken many initiatives; other groups can become more active, including churches, members of the MRP, members of the Papuan civil service, teachers, health workers, Papuan workers in resource extractive industries – and people like those gathered here today.

A legal strategy has the potential to strengthen the case that Indonesian rule in West Papua is totally illegitimate, but only if, at the same time, Papuans themselves are actively refusing to cooperate with, and nonviolently disrupting, Indonesian rule in West Papua. Faced with an adverse legal opinion, but without sustained and widespread protest, the Indonesian government will simply and legitimately point out that Papuans are participating in elections, that local Papuan politicians are in the positions of Governor and Bupati, that the MRP, provincial and local parliaments represent Papuan interests, and that there is a large Papuan civil service running the country.

A legal strategy without a powerful people’s movement is like a bird of paradise with only one wing. It looks appealing but it won’t fly.


[1] Solidarity activist, civil resistance educator and doctoral candidate at the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Queensland.

[2] Professor of Social Sciences, University of Wollongong, Australia, http://www.bmartin.cc/.

[4] Pieter Drooglever, An Act of Free Choice: Decolonisation and the Right to Self-Determination in West Papua, Oxford: Oneworld Publications (2009)

[5] Brian Martin, Justice Ignited: The Dynamics of Backfire, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield (2007); “Backfire materials,” http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/backfire.html.

[6] Kurt Schock, Unarmed Insurrections: People Power in Nondemocracies, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (2005); Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, Boston: Porter Sargent (1973); Adam Roberts and Timothy Garton-Ash, Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experiment of Nonviolent Action from Gandhi to the Present, Oxford: Oxford University Press (2009).

[7] Lawrence S. Wittner, The Struggle against the Bomb (3 volumes), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1993–2003).

[8] Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, New York, NY: Columbia University Press (2011).


Indonesia food security project threatens Papuan way of life – activists

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/indonesia-food-security-project-threatens-papuan-way-of-life-activists

Source: Alertnet // Thin Lei Win

05 Aug 2011 14:07

NOTE: West Papua Media proudly provided fixing services for Reuters AlertNet for this article and further investigations.  

A member of the Koroway tribe walks up a ladder to his house at a forest nearMerauke city in Indonesia’s Papua province in this May 18, 2010 handout photo. REUTERS/Suntono-Indonesia statistic agency/Handout

By Thin Lei Win

BANGKOK (AlertNet) – Indigenous Papuans are at risk of further marginalisation and the forests and ecosystems on which they rely face destruction due to an ambitious food security project by the Indonesian government, activists say.

Under MIFEE (Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate) plans, 1.63 million hectares of forest which forms the basis of life for some 200,000 indigenous people in the Merauke area would be used to grow rice, palm oil, soya bean and corn among other crops.

Indonesia is seen as a key player in the fight against climate change and is under intense international pressure to curb its rapid deforestation rate and destruction of carbon-rich peatlands.

Activists accuse the authorities of not sufficiently consulting the Malind Anim people about the project, which they say pose a double threat to local Papuans. Not only would they lose their customary lands, but they would also face an influx of migrants from the rest of Indonesia — further marginalising communities that feel disenfranchised by what they say is the government’s exploitation of natural resources at their expense.

“If this project goes ahead, it means we will lose everything – we will lose our land, our culture, our livelihood, our food,” Rosa Moiwend, a Papuan activist whose family still lives in Merauke, told AlertNet.

The transition from forest to farm and plantation land would have a “tremendous” impact on natural ecosystems, Carlo Nainggolan from Indonesian rights group Sawit Watch, said.

“Indigenous people who have made use of natural forests to meet necessities of life will experience a dramatically decreased quality of life and well-being,” he said.

Department of Agriculture officials did not respond to a request for comment.

STRAINED TIES

Papua, two provinces on the west half of New Guinea island, has long suffered strained ties with Indonesia which took over the area from Dutch colonial rule in 1963. And this week, thousands of indigenous Papuans them marched on the parliament in the capital of Papua, demanding a referendum on independence from the archipelago.

Despite being home to a mine with the world’s largest gold and recoverable copper reserves, Papua is one of the least developed regions in Indonesia. According to the United Nations, 40 percent of Papuans live below the poverty line of $1.25 a day, compared to the national average of 18 percent.

Both the central and regional governments have hailed MIFEE as the answer not only to Indonesia’s growing concerns about food shortages but as a source of exports.

The project is expected to produce close to 2 million tonnes of rice, almost 1 million tonnes of corn, 2.5 million tonnes of sugar and close to 1 million tonnes of crude palm oil, according to local media reports.

However, activists point out that the staple food for Papuans is sago, a starch derived from sago palm, not rice. And they say there has been discontent in some areas where compensation from companies clearing and managing the land was deemed insufficient.

Despite a recent government pledge to resolve land tenure conflicts and protect the rights of people in forest-based communities, activists say most locals remain in the dark about the project.

“People from the village, when asked about MIFEE project replied, ‘MIFEE is a car that frequently crosses the road that reads MIFEE (on the body of the car)’,” Sawit Watch’s Nainggolan said.

LOSING A WAY OF LIVING

The massive scale of the project and nature of the indigenous people’s skills – many make a living hunting and gathering rather than farming – means a huge workforce is likely to be imported from outside Papua, activists say.

Sawit Watch estimate that some 5 million workers were needed to work the land, or four labourers per hectare. Yet, based on the 2009 census, the number of people native to Merauke was 195,577, Nainggolan said.

The low levels of education, knowledge and Indonesian language skills also mean indigenous Papuans are likely to be only involved in MIFEE as low-skilled labourers despite the loss of their land and livelihoods, he said.

Moiwend summed up the anger felt by activists.

“If the Indonesian government says that we are a part of them, that we are their brothers and sisters like they say, why do they do this project?,” she said. “They don’t want us to live in our own land. They want to kill us with this project.”


West Papua: the road to freedom?

Benny Wenda at the IPWP launch

Image via Wikipedia

Published on August 4, 2011 by Nick Harvey  in
New Internationalist
http://www.newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2011/08/04/west-papua-protests-independence/

West Papua: the road to freedom

Web exclusive

This week marks the 48th anniversary of the West Papuan struggle for independence from Indonesia. Thousands have taken to the streets and international lawyers are making a strong case for West Papuan self-rule.

Thousands have demonstrated on the streets of West Papua in recent weeks demanding independence. Free West Papua Campaign

Thousands have demonstrated on the streets of West Papua in recent weeks demanding independence. Free West Papua Campaign

It is a grief-stricken path that has been followed for generations. It stretches from when the Dutch colonized the region in the 19th century and cruelly continued when control was handed to Indonesia by a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority in 1963. And this week the journey towards independence has led thousands of West Papuans onto the streets to demand the international community acknowledge their right to be free.

‘West Papuans will never recognize their homeland as being part of Indonesia and we have a fundamental right to self-determination under international law,’ says Benny Wenda, a West Papua independence leader living in exile in Britain. ‘West Papuans have marched peacefully this week and have shown again that they can meet violence with peace to achieve this [aim], no matter how much [Indonesia] tries to intimidate us.’

‘A blind eye has been most cynically turned by the international community towards the situation of the people in West Papua’

Protesters and human rights campaigners are regularly harassed and arrested in West Papua and, according to Amnesty International, reports of torture whilst in detention and other human rights violations are commonplace. But with momentum building for the cause, the police have been reluctant to intervene in the recent protests.

‘The demonstrations were so big this time they know if they act violently towards the protesters it would be noticed internationally,’ says Wenda. ‘We have been trying for 48 years now and, just like the Middle East, we need people power to change the world – but we also need people from around the world to notice.’

One of the biggest obstacles that the Free West Papua campaign faces is a lack of interest, let alone support, from the outside world.

Forgotten conflict

‘West Papua is a forgotten conflict,’ says Charles Foster, spokesperson for International Lawyers for West Papua. ‘A blind eye has been most cynically turned by the international community towards the situation of the people there.’

As part of efforts to raise the profile of the region, a conference was held in Oxford this week by the Free West Papua campaign. International lawyers and activists spoke at the event to highlight the case for an independent West Papua under international law.

Nick<br />
Harvey” /></div>
<div><em>Benny Wenda and fellow West Papuans sing their national anthem at a conference in Oxford. Nick Harvey </em></div>
</div>
<p>‘In legal terms, the region has a clear right to self-determination,’ says Foster. ‘If you look at the <a class=New York Agreement [a treaty signed in 1962 by the Netherlands and Indonesia regarding the political status of West Papua, then known as West New Guinea] the United Nations was given trustee status over the region which was supposed to lead to self-determination in 1969. Indonesia has never disputed the fact it put its name to this agreement; therefore it implicitly acknowledges that it was bound by it.’

But the New York Agreement was followed in 1969 by the ironically titled Act of Free Choice, a vote by a tiny section of the population of West Papua, hand-picked by the Indonesian military, on whether the region should become independent or remain part of Indonesia. Although it has since been widely recognized that the process was a sham, calls for a revote have consistently been ignored.

‘There is no serious legal scholar anywhere in the world who thinks the Act of Free Choice was a genuine expression of the free will of the West Papuan people,’ says Foster. ‘When Indonesians talk about this they try to steer clear of what actually happened on the ground in 1969. They’re not stupid, they realize how embarrassing it is.’

As long as the international inertia continues, the situation for West Papuans continues to worsen

Yet even if the New York Agreement is somehow forgotten and the circumstances surrounding the Act of Free Choice somehow ignored, international law still falls heavily on the side of the West Papuans. In 1960 the UN General assembly passed a crucial agreement, the Declaration of Granting Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which states: ‘All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.’

This firm legal ground has yet to translate into any meaningful concessions to the West Papuan people. And as long as the international inertia continues, the situation for West Papuans continues to worsen.

Clemens Runawery is an exiled independence activist who has been unable to return to his country for more than 40 years.

‘The longer we stay part of Indonesia the more our status will suffer, both physically and demographically,’ he says. ‘Back in 1961 the vast majority of the people in West Papua were West Papuan, with only a minority from other places. Today this situation has been completely reversed. How much time do we really have left?’


Photo Report: Mass ralllies show Papuans refuse to accept Indonesian Occupation

by Westpapuamedia.info sources

Social Media across West Papua is abuzz with declarations of relief and pride for the successful and peaceful mass mobilisations called by the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) to support the “West Papua: Road to Freedom” conference in in Oxford UK, on August 2.   The Photo Galleries below demonstrate unequivocally the scale of Papuan opposition to Indonesian rule.

Despite threats of heavy-handed Indonesian security force actions preventing free expression, attempts by the army to blocakade demonstrators, and unexplained act of violence suspected by many to be the work of Special Forces prior to mobilsations, tens of thousands of people across Papua took to the streets to demand their universal human rights to self -determination and a Referendum on the future of Papua.  Though vibrant and very loud, the rallies across Papua reportedly proceeded without any violence or provocations from security forces or proxies.

Bukhtar Tabuni, Chairman of KNPB, said “My appeal to all West Papuans living in jungle, in prison, in various parts of Papua and those living in exile that today all West Papuans must show their solidarity to support the KTT ILWP in Oxford. This event is important because it will conclude whether “Act of Free Choice” in 1969 was illegal and because the UN involved in the transfer of West Papua, it is an international issue.”
Terrianus Yoku, President National Congress West Papua National Authority said, “WPNA fully supports the rally organised by KNPB and appeal for international advocacy to monitor the current situation because it’s very volatile and unsafe.”
In Jayapura, the Rally coordinator from KNPB, Bernard Tabuni, explained that by mid afternoon the marchers paralysed Abepura, with traffic jammed, shops and schools closed and the marchers stretching for well over a kilometre with around 15,000 demonstrators.  The marchers were painted with mud on their body and also painted with stylised depictions of the banned Morning Star flag, thereby upholding the agreement with security forces that no flags would be flown.  The marchers were exuberantly singing and chanting, playing traditional instruments along the route, joined in the Long March by over 30 trucks, 20 station wagons, 17 Kijangs, 400 motorbikes of people joined the long march.”
With its roots in ancient Papuan traditions, demonstrators had planned several marches, called Long Marches, to converge on the DPRP – the focal point for the day’s events.  Troops from the TNI and Brimob riot police attempted to blockade one Abepura-bound Long March at Waena, but demonstrators outwitted the security forces by getting into vehicles and driving around them.  Exuberant scenes of yelling and singing greeted the procession of vehicles as they joined the main body at Abepura.
Daniel Wenda, secretary of KNPB, mentioned that four TNI truckloads of red and white uniformed Barisan Merah Putih (Pro-Indonesian militia) also organised a rally outside DPRD office in Jayapura.   Slogans on the banners stated “Reject the ILWP Summit” (KTT ILWP),  “Don’t lie to the people”, “Detain all corruptors.” and also “anti-Corruptor”.  Observers i Papua have taken the BMP slogans with mirth and irony given that their chief, Ramses Ohee, is regularly the beneficiary of corrupt dealings, has extensive illegal business interests, and receives significant funding from the notoriously corrupt Kopassus special forces.
“This demonstration is aimed to attract attention and counter our main rally but we will not be provoked”, said Daniel Wenda.
Bernard Tabuni reported that undercover military intelligence officers were amongst the demonstrators, and four truckloads of fully armed security forces were following behind the marchers.  TNI and Kopassus were also amongst the bystanders with cameras recording every movement.
A screening of a live internet stream from the Road to Freedom conference in Oxford was planned to be held at the grave of Theys Eluay on Tuesday night, but there are conflicting reports on the success of this.
A carload of armed BMP members appeared at the KNPB Secretariat in Waena late on Tuesday evening.  According to Daniel Wenda, the militiamen – a mix of Javanese and older Papuan men – attempted to gain entry, allegedly to abduct Mako Tabuni, KNPB Vice Chairman.  Tabuni was quickly bundled by KNPB security to a safe location.

In Wamena in the Baliem Valley, almost 17,000 people to a mass gathering that saw scenes of exuberance, singing and dancing.  After several hours of speeches and music, demonstrators peacefully dispersed.

In Sarmi, Yakuhimo and Keerom, reports are filtering out that flagraising ceremonies were held successfully without incident.

The slideshow below shows the August 2 actions in (in this order) Abepura, Waena and Wamena; and also those of  the weak counter-demonstration of Barisan Merah Putih militias funded by the Indonesian special forces, Kopassus, that was held close to the DPRP, or (Papua Province People’s Representative Council).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


‘West Papua – The Road to Freedom’ conference, Oxford, UK, Aug 2

from International Lawyers for West Papua

Next Tuesday 2nd August, international lawyers, politicians, tribal leaders, a UN committee member & a witness to the 1969 Act of Free Choice will gather for the Road To Freedom conference in Oxford, UK.

Chaired by British MP Andrew Smith, the conference will present the strongest case to date that the people of West Papua have the right to self-determination under international law.

People across West Papua will be following the conference and will use its outcomes to further their campaign for freedom.

List of speakers include:

  • Andrew Smith – British politician
  • Jennifer Robinson – International human rights lawyer
  • Powes Parkop – Governor of Port Moresby and the National Capital District, PNG
  • Benny Wenda – West Papua independence leader, UK
  • Frances Raday – Expert Member of the UN Committee for the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women
  • John Saltford -  Expert on the 1969 Act of Free Choice
  • Clement Ronawery – Witness to the 1969 Act of Free Choice
  • Ralph Regenvanu – Vanuatu Justice Minister
  • Charles Foster – co-founder of the International Lawyers for West Papua

As a sign of support for the conference and in solidarity with the Papuan peoples struggle for freedom, the Mayor of Oxford has agreed to fly the Morning Star flag above Oxford Town Hall on the day of the conference.

The conference is taking place at Oxford University’s East School of the Examination Schools, 75-81 High Street, Oxford, OX1 4BG. It will commence at 2pm

Those wishing to attend are required to register by emailing conference@ilwp.org


Urgent need for Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Human Rights Court in Papua

Press Release from LP3BHLaw 21/2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua as amended by Law 35/2008 states the following in article 46, para (1): ‘In order to strengthen unity of the people in the province of Papua, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission should be set up while Article 46 reads as follows: ‘ Within the framework of strengthening unity and unanimity, a Trth and Reconciliation shall be set up.’

‘The task of the Commission (KKR) shall be (a) to reach a clarification of Papuan history to solidify unity and unanimity of the nation within the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and (b) to draft measures towards reconciliation.’

In further elucidation of Article 46, it states the need for reconciliation which shall include the acknowledgement of errors, the need for apology, the offer of forgiveness, peace, the rule of law, amnesty, rehabilitation or other alternatives  necessary to upholding the sense of justice with the community in order to uphold unity and unanimity.

In the opinion of LP3BH-Manokwari, the Association for Research, Advocacy and Development of Legal Aid,  a Commission for Truth and Reconciliation is an integral  part of the implementation of special autonomy that should as a matter of urgency be implemented the Indonesian Government and the regional government in the Land of Papua, namely the governments of Papua and West Papua.

The formation of the KKR is very urgent. There are four issues that need to be dealt with: first, the marginalisation and effective discrimination against the indigenous Papua people as a result of economic developments; political conflicts; and the mass in-migration into Papua since the 1970s.Affirmative action needs to be taken in order to empower the indigenous Papuan people.

The second problem is the failure of development, especially in education, health and economic empowerment. This requires  new paradigms directed towards development that is focussed on improving public services so as to advance the welfare of indigenous Papuans living in the kampungs.

The third issue is the contradiction between the history and political identities of Papua and Indonesia. This problem can only be resolved by means of dialogue such such happened in Aceh.

The fourth issue is the responsibility for state violence committed against Indonesian citizens in Papua. This needs reconciliation between  a human rights court and the truth; to uphold the rule of law and justice for the victims, their families and all Indonesian citizens now living in Papua.

The way to resolve the third and fourth issues  means, according LP3BH, the formation of a truth and reconciliation commission and the setting up of a human rights court in Papua. This is very urgent and pressing and requires the support both of the Indonesian Government and and the governments of the provinces of Papua and West Papua and the various legislative assemblies (DPRP and DRP PB) Why is this so? Because the  historic contradictions and the political identities between Papua and Jakarta all too frequently become the trigger for social-political conflicts  in the Land of Papua. It frequently happens that  when Papuans take action to express their political aspirations in the form of peaceful demonstrations or events held to mark the anniversary of Papuan independence day on 1 December or the anniversary of  the independence of the West Melanesian Republic on 14 December, these incidents become politicised by the state and treaed as criminal acts by the security forces (POLRI) with the arrest of activists of peaceful demonstrators who are then accused of MAKAR or of disturbing the public order and treated as a criminal act in accordance with the criminal code (KUHP).

The security forces frequently use violence amounting to human rights abuses  towards victims either in the form of physical violence or violation of their rights as guaranteed in the KUHAP – the criminal procedural code.

On the other hand, ever since the Act of Free Choice (PEPERA), gross violations of human rights  have been committed by the military against Papuan civilians who are killed, tortured or forcibly disappeared.  Anything between 500 and 1,000 Papuan civilians have been murdered, tortured, forcibly disappeared, and subjected to other forms of violence by members f the military forces (TNI) in virtually all the towns and cities  such as Jayapura, Merauke, Fakfak, Sorong, Manokwari and Biak. In Biak, a number of Papuans who work in the civil service as teachers, nurses, as well as people working for private enterprises, as well as those who worked during the Dutch period  in Serui, Nabire and Biak have been arrested and imprisoned for more than two years at the TNI naval base in Biak.

In addition, properties have been unlawfully and forcibly seized from homes and shops belonging to Chinese inhabitants by members of the armed forces, it being alleged that  they are assets owned by the OPM, which is used as justification. The civilian community in the Land of Papua have themselves felt how  the Indonesian military security forces  entered people’s homes and seized people’s belongings such as transistor radios, tinned food and drinks from The Netherlands All these things were confiscated by the Indonesian military apparatus in 1969 and taken off to Java.

All this has left feelings of bitterness and hatred among the civilian population in the Land of Papua going back many years, which are still being felt today. This is what the Rev. Benny Giay calls Memoria Pasionis.

According to the LP3BH, these matters should have been settled many years ago in accordace with international standards and basic human rights principles.

The LP3BH therefore makes the following demands:

1.    The Indonesian Government should pay attention to the political need to immediately set up a Commission of Truth and Reconciliation in implementation of Law 21/2001, as well as set up a human rights court in Papua.

2.   The provincial governments in Papua and West Papua  should immediately introduce regulations with regard to  the creation of the KKR, its composition, location, and its mode of operation as well as its funding.

3. The DPRP and the DPR PB should take the initiative and play a key role in efforts to set up the KKR and the human rights court in Papua as the  way to solve the social-political conflicts which have continued to persist  from 1969 up to the present day., which should be continued into the future but which have until now been regarded as matters of no importance, and about which nothing has at yet been done to comply with universal legal standards  and basic human rights.

Manokwari, 27 May 2011

LP3BH,
Yan Christian Warinussy, SH


The hope for Papua’s freedom: ‘Go International’

image

Apologies for delay in posting

Tuesday, 03 May 2011 19:58

Editor : Markus

Tabloid JUBI — The struggle of the native people of Papua for freedom from all the evils they have suffered since their annexation into the Unitary Republic of Indonesia on 3rd May 1963, still echo to this day, not only on the local and national scene, but already internationally.

“At this time, our hopes for freedom for the People of West Papua depend on the support of the world. Privately and through our own organisations we are struggling, but now we have the help and sympathy of all the countries of the world,” said the Head of the National Committee of West Papua, Mako Tabuni, on Tuesday 3rd May 2011.

Support from the international world is growing and becoming stronger,for example from Israel.  This is a long campaign, and this is the way to do it – by gaining friends. “The problems of West Papua are also world problems, and Indonesia has to open itself up to recognise the truths of its history, of what happened some decades ago,” said Mako.

The formation of  two  bodies called International Lawyers for West Papua (ILWP) and International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP), said Mako, came about as a result of the world’s notice and support for West Papua. ‘We are being well supported by the ILWP and the IPWP, which are fighting for the fate of West Papua.”

He said this as on the day after Monday 2nd May, when thousands of people had marched peacefully to assemble at the Post Office in Abepura, Jayapura.

The KNPB (National Committee) had emphasised several important points which are tied to our history, status and the sad fate of the people of Papua.

Firstly, the people of West Papua have not, did not nor ever will give their consent to join the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) to become a part of their republic, West Papua.

Secondly, the process of making West Papua part of the NKRI, beginning in 1963 and finishing in 1969, organised jointly by Indonesia, United States of America, the Netherlands and the United Nations, was engineered as a false process, not following the Principles of international justice. The owners of the area of West  Papua were never involved in the process, and the international talks and arrangements took no account of their wishes.

Thirdly, the agreement called “The New York Agreement” was not supervised by the whole of the United Nations, resulting in the “referendum” of 1969, where the people of West Papua were not given their political right to vote on the basis of “one person, one vote”; this “vote” consisted of only 1025 people chosen by Indonesia to “represent” West Papua. This is a violation against the political rights of the people of West Papua.

Fourthly, NKRI has killed and destroyed many of the native citizens of West Papua since they began their DOM (Local Military Operation) to take up possession of the land of West Papua in 1963.

Fifthly, NKRI has pursued, intimidated, terrorised and killed many of the citizens of WP since this operation began.

Sixthly, Special Autonomy was offered as a solution to these problems. This policy was never really implemented as promised and published as policy by Indonesia.

Seventh, the only thing which is supporting Special Autonomy, which is the one thing the NKRI is offering, is part of their colonisation of Papua which nullifies the political rights of the native people of Papua, because the foremost problem for them is their right to determine their own future for themselves, which has been suppressed and undermined by the unilateral annexation of Papua through the so-called Act of Free Choice of 1969.

“We do not recognise the right of the Government of Indonesia, and all the institutions of that country, to stand in the nation of West Papua,” said Mako Tabuni, reading from a petition which had been signed by the whole assembly which had attended the march.

What we, the KNPB, are demanding is, firstly: that Indonesia stop all political manoeuvres using the Special Autonomy, formation of the MRP and the UP$B program in the land of West Papua.

Secondly, Indonesia and West Papua be the subject of an international legal process so that the political status of West Papua can be brought to the table at the International Cpurt, to determine a just policy about the validity of Indonesia’s annexation of the land of West Papua, and a justice for the people of West Papua.

Thirdly, in order to determine the will of the people of West Papua, a Referendum be held in a democratic way by the United Nations, to find a final solution to the political conflict in West Papua.

To find a framework to support this process to end the problems in West Papua via an international legal and political process, the KNPB puts forward the name of  Ms. Melinda Janki as Head of the ILWP, Mr. Charles Foster and all the members of the ILWP.

Also,  Mr. Andrew Smith as Head of the IPWP, Mr. Caroline Lucas together with all members of the IPWP to support the political process to bring the matter before an  internasional forum, together with the support of a free Papua. Also, the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, as a member of the United Nations, also gives a similar mandate  to determine the legal status of West Papua through an international legal process at the International Court of Justice.

At the same time, the Spokesperson of the International KNPB, Victor Yeimo, can be a representative and coordinator to express the hopes and expectations of the people of West Papua. For this to happen, we need to form a representative body: a National Council of West Papua.

“It is not just anyone, it is the people of Papua alone who can bring about freedom. So, let us, the people of this land, come together and work and struggle,” said Yeimo.

About twenty Papuan representatives who addressed the assembly signed a petition before the demonstration ended at about 6 pm.

 (Markus)


SONAMPMA: Photo Report of Show of Support by Papuan people for Referendum

Port Numbay,  Papua.

from National Organisation for Student Solidarity of Papua.

 Peace and Freedom !

 We are reporting on the  Demonstration of the People of Papua demanding a Referendum about Self-determination on May 2, 2011 ; for the people of Papua to have the right to determine their own fate. The demonstration took place at the Post Office in Abepura, Jayapura, as shown below :

 - The Show of Support by the people of Papua was coordinated by the National Committee of West Papua, made up by the following organisations :  Organisation of Students and Youth, DAP, Women, Religions, Intellectuals of Papua, and the whole people of Papua from this area. They marched from Sentani, through Waena and Abepura, towards Jayapura (Imbi Park), starting at 8 am.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

While waiting for the people to arrive from Sentani, there were political speeches from the coordinating body, and from several support organisations , all carrying street banners, leaflets and pamphlets, attracting the close  attention of the security forces, there to  « keep the peace », also tried to obscure some of the pictures.  Some of the banners  were saying :  Some of the leaflets said « Papua, Yes ; Indonesia No. », with each of their flags illustrated. Others said « Referendum » and « Papua Merdeka ».

 -          At another coordination point (the campus of USTP) that morning a group began to gather in front of the campus gateway fronting onto Jalan Raya, Sentani, while others came from the campus of UnCen-Abepura. They had banners saying REFERENDUM. There were speeches and the people began to move towards the main square of the campus.

 -          A large group of people assembled at Imbi Park in the early morning, not to avoid observation, because there were thousands of people already assembled there.

 -          About 5 or 6 detachments of Police from Jayapura were there and 3 units of Brimob (mobile police), observing the demonstration with some bodyguards, using 7 or 8 trucks and other vehicles, some of them equipped with weapo

-          Speeches went ahead until about noon, with 600 people who had arrived from Sentani began to assemble at Expo Waena. The whole procession gathered there were about 1000 people, preparing for the Long March to the Post Office at Abepura.

 -          The Long March began at 1 pm, and proceeded towards Abepura.  At the TNI  post at SIPUR, the demonstrators were surprised by an escort of Mobile Ambulance, together with a group of TNI (Army), fully armed, who accompanied the demonstration.

 -         Mass action continued its long march to the Central (shopping) centre , Post Office-Abepura escorted by security parties mentioned above.

-          There were speeches, which were answered by cries of « Referendum » and « Papua Merdeka ».  They stopped at the traffic lights at the Post Office at Abepura and began to sit on the road. All other activities in the town were halted and the town closed down early.

-          The total number of people eventually numbered about 2000 to 2,500. At about 2.15, the procession from Jayapura began to arrived and gathered together with the others at the Post Office.  The numbers swelled even more. The demonstrators stayed at this place, and listened to speeches from some of the leaders of the different groups representing the protestors.

- This demonstration was carried out peacefully until 6 pm, helped by vehicles which helped to keep the peace,   dispersing the people peacefully,  after which they resumed normal economic activities on the streets.

- The demonstration today, after marching well with vehicles and on foot, went off well and peacefully without any violence.

This report that we have made is completed by the Organising Committee for the Demonstration, 2nd May 2011, with great care, and we thank you for reading it.

SONAMAPA


KNPB: Joint Petitions and Photos on Referendum Demand in Papua

The Choice of Papuan People (Photo courtesy KNPB)

Edited for Linguistic Clarity by westpapuamedia

KOMITE NASIONAL PAPUA BARAT
The West Papua National Committee [KNPB]
papuaemergency@yahoo.com | +6282198150589
==========================================================================================

POLITICAL STATEMENT
No: 015/knpb.sp/V/2011

Today, May 1, 2011, We the people of West Papua mediated by the West Papua National Committee [KNPB] give our statement that:

1.  We the Indigenous People of West Papua have never and will never accept the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) to occupy our
territory, West Papua.

2.  The process of incorporating our territory of West Papua under the rule of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI); starting from 1963 until 1969
with the cooperation of Indonesia, the United States, the Netherlands and the United Nations was  engineered, constructed and
managed by violations of the Standards and Principles of International Law.

Because we, as the owners of West Papua, were
never involved in the meetings and international agreements which discussed the political status of our region of West Papua.

3.  Unilateral agreements made under the “New York Agreement” were not fully implemented by the UN, Indonesia and the Netherlands during the Act of Free Choice in 1969;  in which we the people of West Papua were never granted the political right to vote (based on the principle of “one man one vote”) in the implementation carried out by the 1025 Act of Free Choice representatives appointed by Indonesia
to represent us and  choose.   It is a violation of our political rights.

4.   Indonesia  through its military operations have killed most of the indigenous population of West Papua Oince the DOM (Area of
Military operations) was applied in West Papua from 1963.

5.  Indonesia  has pursed, intimidated, terrorized, gaoled and killed the people of West Papua who fight for their rights and sovereignty of the West Papua nation.

6.  Autonomy is not a solution to solve the West Papua problem, because t we, as the indigenous people of West Papua in West
Papua, had never approved the application of special autonomy, UP4B Program and all policies by Indonesia in West Papua.

7.  Whoever  supports  the  Special  Autonomy  and  all  Indonesian  policies  in  West  Papua,  they are (considered) part of the colonists who compromise with Indonesia to abolish the political rights of our indigenous people of Papua; because our main problem is that the right of self determination which was trampled and eliminated through the implementation of the Act of Free Choice in 1969.

8.  We do not acknowledge the existence of the Republic of Indonesia government and all state institutions of Indonesia, in the land of
West Papua.

Therefore, based on our statement above, we the indigenous people of West Papua demand that Indonesia:

1.  Stop  all  the  political  maneuvering  that  is  being  implemented  through  the  Special  Autonomy,  Redistricting,  UP4B  program,
Elections,  Formation of MRP,  and all its programs on our homeland of West Papua.

2.  Indonesia and West Papua as subject to international law to immediately restore the political status of West Papua to the table of
international law, to prove itsef honest and thoughtful about the validity of Indonesia’s presence  in our region of West Papua, for the sake of humanity and justice for the people of West Papua.

3.   Immediately demonstrate the political will to hold a democratic referendum in West Papua under UN supervision in order to achieve the final solution of the political conflict in West Papua.

4.  Stop the militaristic approach to solving problems in West Papua, because that is a archaic way in this era of open democracy.

Along with this, for the sake of solving the problems of West Papua through the process of Law and Politics, then we the people of West
Papua formally hand over a full mandate to:

1. Ms. Melinda Janki as chairman of the International Lawyers for West Papua (ILWP), Ms.. Charles Forster and all members ILWP to encourage the completion of the West Papua problem through the application of international law.

2. Mr. Andrew Smith, MP, as Chairman of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua (IPWP), Ms.. Caroline Lucas MP and all members IPWP to push the political process at the international level with the Free Papua solidarity supporters.

3. To the Government of the Republic of Vanuatu as Official Member of the UN to bring Legal Status of West Papua to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or International Tribunal.

For the sake of the unity of the struggle of West Papuans, then we also appeal to all the components and struggle organizations of the West
Papua that:

1. To stop the internal dispute between the Papuan people and organizations of struggle, and (to end) all unilateral decisions and that does not represent the values and decisions of the representatives of West Papua and its struggle.

2. Immediately unite in national consolidation to encourage the formation of the National Council of West Papua as an Agency Representative of
National Struggle in West Papua.

This statement has been made based on pure will of the people of West Papua.

Salam Satu Hati Satu Jiwa: One People One Soul
Kita Harus Mengakhiri

Port Numbay, Mei 1,  2011

CC:
1.  The Republic of Indonesian President in Jakarta
2.  Serge Vohor, PrimeMinister of the Republic of Vanuatu
3.  Ms. Melinda Janki, chair of  International Lawyers for West Papua (ILWP) in London, UK
4.  Mr. Andrew Smith MP, Chair of International Parliamentarians for West Papua (ILWP) in London, UK
5.  Mr. David Cameron, Prime Minister of United Kingdom in London, UK
6.  Mr. Barack Hussein Obama, Presiden of United States of America in Washington
7.  All the struggle organizations.
8.  Arsip

Joint Petition signed in the name of West Papua by

Buchtar Tabuni
Chairman of KNPB