Category: Opinion

What Kind of Solidarity for West Papua? A response to Martin Pelcher’s article ‘Fear, Grief and Hope in Occupied West Papua’

What Kind of Solidarity for West Papua? A response to Martin Pelcher’s article ‘Fear, Grief and Hope in Occupied West Papua’

by  Jason MacLeod

DISCUSSION PAPER

In a recent article, ‘Fear, Grief and Hope in Occupied West Papua’, author activist Martin Pelcher issued a thought provoking challenge to international advocates working in solidarity with West Papuans. Pelcher, who is predominately speaking to ‘White’, ‘Western’ activists, argues that a recent surge in state violence against Komite Nasional Papua Barat (KNPB – the West Papua National Committee) is cause for re-evaluating international solidarity for West Papua. Pelcher wonders whether Western support for Papuan freedom might be counter-productive. While there is much in Pelcher’s article that I agree with I think Pelcher lets Western solidarity activists – and by extension governments and transnational corporations who support the Indonesian government’s continued occupation of West Papua – off too lightly. Reflexivity is essential but we need to ensure that Western activists do not avoid responsibility for challenging the way Western governments and corporations fuel violence and exploitation in West Papua. Solidarity activists can take comfort in the fact that a broad spectrum of Papuans[1] are also asking for international support in ways that respect and strengthen their own agency.

Pelcher’s piece is an invitation to dialogue. It has already generated much conversation. The call to make that conversation more public, or visible amongst growing international solidarity networks, has been picked up by the West Papua Advocacy Team in the United States and also by the Faith Based Network for West Papua who encouraged people to respond to Pelcher’s article. This piece is a response to that invitation and written with the desire to continue the conversation.

Pelcher’s original argument

Western support for a free West Papua taps into deeply embedded Indonesian narratives of western imperialism. Pelcher writes that this is not just lingering nationalist hurt over the loss of East Timor. Even progressive Indonesian activists support West Papua’s continued integration into Indonesia. Notice, for example, Indonesian Friends of the Earth’s (WALHI) recent failure to publicly support their representative in West Papua, Fanny Kogoya when she was forced into hiding because of her links to KNPB. Indonesian citizen support for the occupation is a tremendous source of power for the state that helps the state maintain and justify military aggression.

Although attacks on KNPB have received more coverage – in what is still a grossly under-reported struggle – other groups also continue to be targeted by the state. Papuan political prisoners in jail represent both highlanders and islanders and a broad diversity of political groups. Political organisations aside from KNPB who also pursue independence include the Federal Republic of West Papua, West Papua National Authority, AMP (Aliansa Masyarakat Papua), AMP-PT (Aliansa Masyarakat Papua – Pegunungan Tengah), DEMAK (Dewan Masyarakat Koteka), Sonamapa (Solidaritas Nasional Mahasiswa Papua Barat), FNMPP (Front Nasional Mahasiswa Pemuda Papua Barat), West Papua National Youth Awarenesss Team (Westpanyat), AMAK (Aliansa Masyarakat Anti-Kekerasan), ParJal (Parlamen Jalanan), Garda and others. Activists in other parts of the country like Fak-Fak, Manokwari, Yapen, Merauke and elsewhere have also been hit by the repressive force of the Indonesian state. Even groups that eschew an overt political agenda, preferring to expand the contours of freedom through campaigning for basic rights, are routinely harassed by the state. They include civil society groups like Elsham Papua, Dewan Adat Papua, Bersatu untuk Keadilan, Foker LSM, Jubi, Kontras, the churches and others. Some human rights defenders have had to periodically relocate themselves and their families to Jakarta to protect themselves from intimidation and threats.

Papuans also consider the TPN-PB (Tentara Pembebasan Nasional – Papua Barat), or National West Papuan Liberation Army – which consists of a decentralised network of groups based around attachment to clan, tribe, and geographic area – an important part of resistance to the Indonesian state. But in terms of numbers, activities and effectiveness the TPN-PB are marginal players. Members of the armed struggle are routinely co-opted by the state to further the Indonesian security services own aims, whether that is about protecting vested private business interests – mostly in logging, mining and extortion – or pursuing national security objectives designed to weaken and destroy the Papuan independence movement.

The random and brutal nature repression by the Indonesian state means that citizens not actively involved in the freedom movement routinely become victims of state violence. In his article Pelcher focuses on KNPB but alludes to the fact that the whole of Papuan society is caught up in the same repressive net. Papuans live with this foreboding sense that they, their family members or their friends could be targeted at any time.

In seeking to explain the state repression in West Papua Pelcher reminds us that the Indonesian nation was formed and defended in the context of a long, and relatively recent, anti-imperialist struggle against the Dutch. Nearly two decades after Indonesian nationalists declared independence in 1945 Sukarno launched a military invasion to wrest back control of what he called the “Dutch Puppet State”. For this reason, as well as for the fact that West Papua’s inclusion into the Indonesian archipelago reinforces a multi-ethnic, multi-religious Indonesian identity, West Papua’s inclusion in the Unitary Republic of Indonesia is a source of tremendous pride for the overwhelming majority of Indonesians, including left wing activists. This view is deeply entrenched. The fact that the Indonesian political elite also gained control of bountiful supply of valuable natural resources was simply icing on the cake. Western narratives of Papuans nonviolently fighting for democracy, rights and national liberation against a brutal military occupation are rendered immediately suspect, tapping into what many Indonesians believe is a ‘hidden agenda’ by the West. The narrative of a Papuan led anti-colonial resistance struggle does not easily fit with the dominant Indonesian view that they liberated Papua. Instead sympathetic Western portrayals of the Papuan struggle are re-cast and attached to ulterior motives. Pelcher:

Western support for East Timorese independence – and signs of such support being extended to West Papua – have been easy to frame [by the Indonesian press] as vehicles for the West’s neo-imperial manipulation and pursuit of the region’s abundant mineral and petroleum resources. The more Western advocates succeed in focusing global attention on the plight of Papuans under Indonesian rule, the more the Indonesian security establishment can deploy the spectre of a “foreign intervention” (like the UN’s intervention in East Timor) to mobilize Indonesian public opinion behind its harsh policing measures.

One of the reasons why Pelcher’s article is so challenging is that he writes to us as an insider, as a fellow solidarity activist, who is searching his conscience for answers to the question ‘what to do?’, and in doing so prompting us to search our own conscience. And it is not as if the issues he raises have gone away. Since Pelcher wrote the article attacks against KNPB have gotten worse. The Indonesian state has all but “declared war” on the pro-independence civilian based organisation. At the time of writing 22 leaders had been summarily executed by the security forces. Scores have been arrested. Much of the leadership has been driven underground and into exile … but KNPB maintains it’s politically defiance stance. The group’s leader, Victor Yeimo continues to insist that KNPB is committed to resolute nonviolent resistance and will not back down from its call for a referendum.

So what should international advocates do? Pelcher has more questions than answers. He acknowledges that Western advocates are increasingly putting Papuan human rights on the international community’s agenda. Pelcher also recognises the work of Papuan human rights defenders and their allies in Jakarta who have raised questions about the Indonesian security forces use of summary justice instead of legal means to investigate acts of violence. However, the dominant story in the Indonesian media supports a police narrative that pins “the blame on the student activists of KNPB as well as the wider network of underground Papuan nationalist resistance.”  The central question Pelcher raises in his article is how can international advocates generate global solidarity against injustice in West Papua without strengthening the state’s pretext for terror?

Papuans are the drivers of the struggle

I agree with Pelcher that Papuans are the drivers of the struggle. The more Papuans rise up and collectively and nonviolently resist the occupation the more the legitimacy of the Indonesian government’s continued aggression in West Papua is strained; the more likely more people outside Papua will stand in solidarity with them, and the more effective that solidarity is likely to be. Papuans are the primary architects of their own liberation. While external solidarity is important it will always be secondary to movements for change inside the country. We need critical reflection about the role of external solidarity.  As well as reinforcing the way the security forces frame Papuan resistance as a foreign led plot, at times international solidarity action has tended to tap into unrealistic Papuan beliefs about the willingness and ability of the international community to assist Papuan freedom goals. Although solidarity in other parts of Indonesia and international solidarity outside Papua is necessary to support Papuan freedom goals, by itself it will never be sufficient. We need solidarity that is respectful; solidarity that strengthens collective action that is led by Papuans. We need less solidarity action and rhetoric that fosters dependency, passivity and false hopes that outsiders will save the Papuans. They cannot. They will not. As Benny Giay, the moderator of the Papuan church once said, “Papuans are the captains of their own lives.”

South-South solidarity

Pelcher is not arguing against solidarity; he is asking what kind of solidarity might be most useful to the Papuan’s struggle for freedom. Some solutions are implicit in his article, others Pelcher is more forthright about. In particular, Pelcher calls for more “south-south” solidarity as a necessary corrective to White Western perspectives.

Two types of South-South solidarity are particularly important. The first is solidarity from Pacific Island countries, particularly the Melanesian countries. Why should other states worry about what is happening in West Papua when Pacific Island countries in general, including Australia and New Zealand, and the Melanesian nations in particular, say and do little to support West Papua? The voice of Melanesian citizens and governments are essential to mobilizing greater international support. If the Papuans continue to push for an independent state they will need the support of other states but that goal, if it eventuates, is a long way off. Independence is even less likely without the active support of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Fiji).

Secondly, there is much valuable learning that can happen between Papuans and other peoples who are resisting occupations and struggling for self-determination. Recently I had the privilege of witnessing a learning exchange between West Papuans and Burmese who shared notes about how to work nonviolently for democracy, rights and liberation in a repressive context. Papuans have learnt much from their colleagues in East Timor and Aceh. Imagine if there were more venues where focused learning could take place. Spaces where West Papuans could meet with people from other self-determination struggles who have successfully enlarged the contours of freedom: East Timorese, South Sudanese and Kosovars. Imagine too if Papuans could exchange strategies and tactics with people who are still struggling for self-determination: Palestinians, Tibetans, Saharawi’s from Western Sahara, Nagas, Kanaks (people from the French colony of New Caledonia), people from Mahoi Nui (Tahiti and French Polynesia), Bougainvillians, the Kurds and other indigenous peoples caught in the grip of the state.

 

 

Solidarity between Papuans and Indonesians

I also agree with Pelcher that solidarity with progressive Indonesians is also essential. This is something that both Papuans and their transnational allies could cultivate more. People like Budi Hernawan, Andreas Harsono and Eko Waluyo are providing leadership here. They hold out a challenge to other Indonesians who care about democracy, human rights, and social and environmental justice.

There is a strategic paradox to wrestle with here. Many Papuans opposes the Indonesian state but they also need the support of ordinary Indonesians to secure greater freedom.  This is because Jakarta depends less on Papuans to maintain the occupation than on sustaining domestic support for an Indonesian state that includes West Papua at all costs. In brief, Papuans need Indonesian allies. However, when Papuans exclusively appeal to indigenous identity and Christianity, frame their grievances around historical injustices, and communicate their aspirations in ways that emphasise independence, they unwittingly limit their ability to mobilize support from other Indonesians who are overwhelmingly nationalist and Muslim. As a result, Papuans reduce their chances of winning over a key influence on the Indonesian government: the Indonesian people.

This highlights the conundrum for Papuan activists. There is a perception that working for intermediate objectives means selling out the long-term goal of independence. Yet to build Indonesian support for greater political freedom in West Papua and to put pressure on the Jakarta government requires framing campaigns around intermediate objectives like: freedom of expression; open access to West Papua for journalists, diplomats, NGOs, tourists, and others; democracy; environmental protection; corruption; sustainable development; economic justice, civil rights, universal access to education and health services; accountable government; and human rights. This does not mean giving up on larger goals like independence. As one senior Papuan leader recently said to me: “the struggle for basic rights is not the enemy of independence”. It means taking a longer view about building political power.

Campaigns for more limited strategic objectives can simultaneously strengthen Indonesian democracy and build Papuans’ international reputation—developments that will leave Papuans in a better position to realize larger aspirations. This is a strategic challenge. Papuans need to use collective action frames that resonate with different audiences at different times, define intermediate demands, and time mobilization to achieve short-term objectives, but in ways that leave the movement in a stronger position to achieve their ultimate goal: full political freedom.

In this way a new Papua gets built on an inclusive vision and a deeper articulation of the multiple meanings of merdeka (freedom). People like John Rumbiak and Benny Giay urge that this vision needs to include not only diverse Papuan tribes, but also Indonesian migrants, another source of the Indonesian government’s power in West Papua. Mobilization through an exclusive Papuan identity and through a single focused demand for independence framed exclusively in opposition to Indonesia will create a fragile unity, perhaps liable to break down under stress and less capable of carrying through an agenda for democratic transformation.

 

Non-partisanship

There are other areas where Pelcher and I agree, particularly his implicit argument for solidarity that is non-partisanship. It is clear from his article that Pelcher is close to the radical highland independence youth movement, KNPB. This is a group that I also sympathise with. However, Pelcher does not exclusively take sides. He also writes about the leadership of the Federal Republic of West Papua currently imprisoned for determined, unapologetic and nonviolent acts of insurrection. Pelcher articulates the challenges the movement for freedom in West Papua poses not only to the Indonesian state but also to transnational capital in West Papua. We need more activists like Pelcher who can reach out to the different parts of the movement and in doing so make more space for unity from inside the movement and solidarity from outside.

 

Where we disagree: the paradox of repression

While I agree with Pelcher’s analysis about how Western support for freedom in West Papua can tap into Indonesian suspicion that there is a foreign plot to access West Papua’s resources I disagree with his conclusions. I think Pelcher is mistaken in his understanding of the dynamics of repression. I also think that part of our role as solidarity activists is to continually emphasize that the struggle is being led by Papuans and that role of outsiders is to support their efforts and amplify their voices. I don’t think that solidarity by Westerns is the cause of repression, even though the state will use whatever means they can to justify their repression.

One of the reasons why the Indonesian government is employing repression against KNPB and other resistance groups – including sanctioning extrajudicial killing – is because they fear the growing power of organised nonviolent resistance against the state. Kopassus’ (the Indonesian Special Forces) own intelligence analysis of the Papuan freedom movement, leaked by Alan Nairn and the West Papua Project from the University of Sydney, reveals that the armed struggle is not a threat because they ‘hardly do anything’.

One of the reasons the armed struggle does not “do anything” – or rarely engages in military action – is because it is hard to recruit people to join the armed struggle. Guerrilla fighters often live difficult lives isolated in the jungle and mountains. The TPN does also not have a state sponsor, and while it will be extremely difficult for the state to destroy the TPN militarily, the TPN will also never be able to out gun or outnumber the Indonesian military. The use of violence to achieve political goals also favours fit young men and involves high levels of commitment and risk. Few Papuans are willing to risk their lives joining an armed struggle that has little prospect of success.

According to the Indonesian military nonviolent resistance is “much more dangerous” because they have “reached the outside world’’ with their ‘obsession’ with ‘merdeka’ (the independence/ freedom struggle) and persist in “propagating the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua,’ i.e. ‘murders and abductions that are done by the security forces.’’

Stopping Papuans who are organising to win freedom is easier if the movement uses violence or if the Indonesian government can convince outsiders that Papuans are engaged in armed struggle. If Papuans respond – or are seen to be responding – with violent action the Indonesian government will be able to frame their actions as terrorism and threats to national sovereignty. This allows the Indonesian government to justify their use of violence against the movement. Action that physically harms others or threatens other people reduces support from third parties. Even if third parties are sympathetic to the goals of the movement the majority of people will question the legitimacy of using violence who tend to view armed movements as extremists. Innocent villagers from the rural areas are particularly vulnerable to disproportionate violent retaliation by the security forces because few journalists, church workers and human rights groups are present and able to hold the security forces accountable through human rights reportage.

The purpose of state violence is to inflict pain but to do so in ways that lessen the likelihood that repression will generate moral outrage and consequently, more political mobilisation. The Indonesian government wants to stop people coming together to press for rights and freedom and they are prepared to use any means necessary. In one sense, therefore repression – if it occurs when the movement is growing in numbers and power – can be interpreted as success; that the opponent recognises the growing strength of the movement.

There is no guarantee of success for any liberation movement. But using nonviolent action increases the likelihood of success and provides more opportunities for large numbers of people to participate in the struggle. The consistent use of disciplined and collective mass nonviolent action over time will is more likely to prompt ordinary Indonesians to question the occupation and even divide their loyalties. That is why nonviolent discipline is so important. The Papuan freedom movement needs to encourage ordinary Indonesians to question what their government is doing. It also needs to carry out actions that encourage and enable more support from domestic and international third parties.

If the Indonesian state continues to use violent repression against Papuans, which it is doing at the moment and is likely to continue to do, the Papuan freedom movement needs to be prepared. The evidence from studies of liberation movements around the world, including from places where repression is more severe than in West Papua, shows that repression can backfire. The most important thing that helps make repression backfire is that repression becomes visible to outside audience and gets interpreted as an injustice in ways that promote moral outrage. Solidarity activists, working in cooperation with Papuan activists, have a big role to play with this. Inviting outsiders like PBI, diplomats, journalists and others to witness and report on both state violence and nonviolent resistance can also help.

There are a range of other things movements can do. Tactically they can emphasise actions that are low risk and high participation. Movements can also build decentralized network structures coordinated by a shared vision, shared goal and a shared strategy. These kinds of structures are more resilient than hierarchical structures because they encourage collective leadership, support tactical innovation and help protect more visible leaders who may be targeted by the state.

People inside and outside West Papua need to raise the political and economic costs of the Indonesian government not negotiating with the Papuan freedom movement. Make no mistake – we need militancy, but militancy of a determined, disciplined nonviolent kind. Papuans are already acting in this way. We need more outsiders to get behind them. One of the reasons the Indonesian government has not engaged in dialogue is because it is not worth them investing political capital in doing so. In other words the conflict in West Papua has not become enough of a problem for them, both domestically and internationally. The conflict has to become more costly economically for transnational capital in West Papua. Papuan activists and the solidarity movement need to use nonviolent methods to compel the Indonesian and foreign governments, and transnational capital to sit at the table in ways that take control of how the struggle is portrayed. We need to understand that the role of repression is to stop Papuans demanding freedom and rights. We need to find ways to continue to support Papuans who live with the tension between the risk of making change and keeping safe. But we also need to be realistic; there is no path in life that does not involve suffering. That is particularly true for those committed to struggling for liberation in the midst of the Indonesian government’s occupation of West Papua. To a much lesser extent that is true for solidarity activists. We need more people like Pelcher who travel inside Papua, get close to Papuan activists struggling for freedom, and provide practical support and moral solidarity to unarmed resistance at some risk to themselves.

 

 

Waging the struggle in three domains

It is foreign governments that help supply the Indonesian military and police with arms. It is the Australian and U.S governments that train and arm Detachment 88, the counter intelligence police force that has no qualms about using extra-judicial killing as a form of conflict management. It is unchecked transnational companies that are fueling conflict in West Papua.

In situations where one’s own government supports the Indonesian’s government’s occupation of West Papua the role of solidarity activists is fourfold: first, to nonviolently resist our own government’s support of Indonesian state violence; second, to find ways to support nonviolent resistance in West Papua; third, to make both the human rights violations by the Indonesian state and the nonviolent resistance by the Papuans more visible and more audible; and fourth, to communicate both these to ever expanding audiences who can mobilise on behalf of the Papuans.

I think solidarity activists, including Western activists, need to be more active not less. My own view is that the job of international solidarity activists is to work in collaboration with Papuans to raise the political and economic costs of the Indonesian government’s occupation. And because the Indonesian government depends on support of ordinary Indonesians, foreign governments and transnational capital as well as West Papuans to maintain the occupation we need a stronger movement that wages nonviolent conflict inside West Papua, inside Indonesia and in the societies of the Indonesian government’s international allies. When it comes to West Papua, people inside and out need to generate more conflict, not less. We then need to find nonviolent ways to resolve that conflict that support justice and peace. That does not equate with supporting or being involved with political violence.

 

What kind of international solidarity for West Papua?

So what kind of international solidarity is needed for West Papua? I think those of us in Western countries that have been ‘armed’ with wealth and opportunity need to use our privilege ethically. Elites in countries like the Netherlands, the U.S and Australia created the problem in West Papua. These countries continue to benefit politically and economically from the situation. That creates a moral imperative for Australians, Dutch, German’s, English, Irish, Scots, U.S citizens and others to act in solidarity with the Papuans. We need to care just as much about decolonization and liberation as Papuans do.

I want to suggest seven things international Western solidarity activists can do.

Firstly, we need to be committed to supporting the struggle through nonviolent means, not just for moral reasons, but primarily because nonviolent resistance is more effective. It allows more people to participate in the struggle, it is more likely to win over uncommitted third parties and it is more likely to blunt the political effectiveness of the Indonesian government’s use of violence to repress the movement.

Secondly, we need more people like Pelcher who visit West Papua. West Papua is isolated internationally. Personal face to face relationships help deepen people’s commitment to accompanying Papuans in their struggle for peace and justice, sensitise them to the issues and provide the means for getting information out. Quantitatively more ties between Papuans and sources of outside support and qualitatively stronger relationships between Papuans, Indonesians and outsiders that are orientated towards respectfully assisting Papuan goals help maximize the likelihood that Papuans will realize their desire for freedom.

Thirdly, and related to the second point, we need more people who learn Indonesian. While many Papuan activists are doing their bit to break down West Papua’s isolation by learning English we also need more people who take the time to learn Indonesian and make long-term commitments to the struggle. Again Pelcher is an inspiration in this regard.

Fourthly, if and when we are invited by Papuans to do so, we can provide technical support to assist nonviolent struggle. Building a strong and secure communications network and increasing strategic capacity is particularly critical.

Fifthly, we need to target the Indonesian government’s external sources of power located in our own countries of origin. We need more U.S’ers to target the way their government and the way Freeport exports terror and exploits West Papua. We need others to target other corporations like BP, Rio-Tinto and logging companies who exploit West Papuan resources and foster economic and environmental injustice. We need more citizens to challenge and disrupt their own government’s willingness to arm and train the Indonesian military and police.

Sixthly, and lastly, we need to build relationships with and collaborate with progressive Indonesian activists and support and work with Papuan activists to do the same. Indonesia will never be a free and equitable society while West Papuans are denied their right to decide their future; while they live in poverty, while their resources are plundered, while foreign journalists are locked out, while political prisoners continue to languish in jail, while the Indonesian security forces continue to use torture with impunity, and while Papuans are denied the right to free speech.

Seventh, Pelcher makes the point powerfully that we all – Papuans, Indonesians and international allies – need to find ways to recast the story that the struggle in Papua is violent and foreign led and that solidarity with West Papua is anti-Indonesian and imperialist. That story is false. It serves vested corporate and military interests, both in Indonesia and in the offices of governments and boardrooms of transnational corporations. We need new memes that recast the story. The struggle in West Papua is a nonviolent anti-occupation struggle for justice, human rights and democracy. West Papua is Indonesia’s Palestine.

West Papua needs more friends and more solidarity from the West, not less. We especially need to continue with the solidarity when the Indonesian government uses ruthless repression in an attempt to silence the Papuan movement for freedom.

I want to leave the last word on solidarity to KNPB chair, Viktor Yeimo. Recently arrested for leading a nonviolent action in West Papua, Yeimo issued a clear invitation to solidarity. Paraphrasing Ché Guevara Yeimo wrote: “when your heart trembles at oppression you are a friend of ours”.

In the spirit of Yeimo’s request may Papuans find that the numbers and commitment of their friends growing daily.

[1] This includes religious leaders, traditional leaders, women, students, academics, NGO activists, human rights defenders as well as members of resistance groups. Notable exceptions like Franzalbert Joku and Nick Messett, who actively support the Indonesian government’s position, notwithstanding.

Related articles
2

A Chronology of PT Minersave’s (Freeport’s) Entry into Intan Jaya Regency, West Papua

This article from KOMISI, a group of students from Intan Jaya in West Papua (in co-operation with the SuaraPapua website), recounts how the Freeport mining company, through its subsidaries, established exploration activities in remote Intan Jaya regency over twenty years ago with the help of a western missionary. Currently, as local politicians grant permissions for further exploration work without a mandate or the consent of the communities that live there, the students make a clear demand that the company leaves their land, knowing the pattern of conflict that is bound to emerge otherwise.

Translated from http://suarapapua.com/2012/12/kronologis-masuknya-pt-minersave-di-kabupaten-intan-jaya
Article available in English on hidupbiasa: http://hidupbiasa.blogspot.com/2012/12/a-chronology-of-pt-minersaves-freeports.html

December 2, 2012.

Intan Jaya Regency is a new administrative region which split from Paniai Regency in 2008. Until that time, Sugapa, Hitalipa and other areas were still under the administration of Paniai Regency.

The story begins in 1989 – 1990 when several westerners arrived, calling themselves the Survey Team. They were accompanied by a missionary from District Hitalipa, who had been given the friendly nickname of Jani Mala by local people.  His real name is John Cutts, a foreigner who was born and raised in Intan Jaya.

They arrived from Timika in an Airfast helicopter, and after arriving at the Kingmi Missionary Post in Hitalpa district , they continued towards the Hiyabu river, not far away.

Once at the river they started taking sand, water and rock samples. Then they continued towards the confluence of the Hiyabu and Dogabu rivers, and then to the confluence of the Wayabu and Wabu rivers and to several streams that joined the Wabu River, taking more samples at each river.

As they passed the Wabu River at Wandoga, John Cutts happened to meet a local resident, Stevanus Sondegau, by a stream known as Wonemiggi.  John and his companions continued their journey to the confluence with the Tigabu river, where once again they took samples and panned the sand to look for gold.

At that moment John met with another local resident, known locally as Ojegoa Tawa Mbole Belau or Didimus Belau, from Bilogae village, Sugapa District, who farmed cassava, taro and other plants along the Tigitalipa river. As usual John Cutts spoke in Migani, the local language, and told Didimus what they were doing there.

“ A me,..mepao,..mendaga kaneta taliago kaya, Hitalipagemaya tali ne,..du ne,..homa ne,.. inigiao dia digio,. usua naga ndogo- Timika ge inua noa nggaga inuapa dutima dia diggiyo,.data kapage go wabu ge dega-dega data homeyo pialiggiyo dipage go Timika puapaya,”  John Cutts said to Didimus in Migani, which means “I’m accompanying these people to collect water, rock and sand samples from Hitalipa to look at in the laboratory in Timika. From here we will continue to follow the upper reaches of the Wabu river then to Homeyo District and then we will go to Timika”.  John Cutts, the man who the local people always addressed as Jani Mala, continued with the survey team towards Homeyo District.

Several months later, on 28th September 1991, John Cutts made a second visit to Sugapa, Intan Jaya as a representative of PT Freeport Indonesia. His aim was to meet with the head of the Sugapa district and tribal chiefs to inform them that PT Freeport would start operations in Sugapa district and several other districts in Intan Jaya.

That meeting, which took place in the Sugapa district office, was attended by Hombore BA, the district head at the time, the members of the Tripika (local representatives of government, police and military), together with community leaders who hold the customary land rights, who all came and listened to what John Cutts had to say.

Migani community leaders that were present in that meeting included Paulus Japugau, Yuliu Sani, Adolof Belau, Oktopianus Sondegau, Samuel Japugau, Andreas Tipagau, and Bony Sondegau amongst others. They were confused when they heard John Cutts’ explanations, and didn’t understand why he wanted to carry out this exploration (Survey) on their land. They went straight home without agreeing to anything or being in agreement with John Cutts’ wishes to start surveying their land.

John Cutts took advantage of the Intan Jaya people’s limited knowledge and lack of experience to introduce Freeport to the area on its own terms, without any agreement to co-operate or Memorandum of Understanding with customary land rights holders. Although no such agreement had been made, John Cutts nevertheless imposed his wishes, bringing PT Freeport to Sugapa and other locations in Intan Jaya.

The way John Cutts gave PT Freeport the opportunity to carry out exploration activities in Sugapa, Hitalipa and other areas of Intan Jaya is an example of daylight robbery.  The people had no option but to accept what little they could at that time, so they made the non-written suggestion to PT Freeport, that they would allow them to go ahead with their explorations.  However as compensation for the trees that PT Freeport cut for their helipad, drillpad, material pad etc. they must take on local people to work for the company, explained a reliable source who is a customary landowner in that village.

In this way several local youth accepted jobs from PT Freeport in Sugapa, but they met with many obstacles. They didn’t know what they had to do.  Each mornng at 4.30 am they had to have tools and materials ready to build the basecamp and clear the land, while other workers went up and down to where the helipad, drillpad, materialpad and landing site would be built in the forest. Day after day, week after week and month after month, the wages the local workers received was very small indeed.

The helicopter which had been hired for the exploration made endless trips to Timika to bring food for the local workers in Sugapa. As exploration activities took hold in Sugapa, the Freeport manager took on the police and military who were assigned to Sugapa district to maintain security at the site.

The company needed building materials to build the camp and so requested that local people provide boards and wood, with the promise that they would be paid 15,000 Rupiah for thin planks, 10,000 Rupiah for large pieces of wood, and 5000 rupiah for medium sized pieces of wood.

When they heard that the people prepared the materials the company required. However the people were sadly not paid as had previously been agreed with PT Freeport, but had to renegotiate for a lower price. The people protested at this transaction, but were confronted with the police and army.

Whenever anyone protested, the police and military stationed there would deal with the problem; if anyone claimed they should be paid the price the company had proposed, the police and military would hit that person without hesitation until their face was black and blue. After one man, Linus Sondegau, was beaten in this way, a mass fight broke out between police and army and the local workers.

On seeing this, local people felt powerless to make any further protest against PT Freeport’s deception in Sugapa. Meanwhile John Cutts had since disappeared, after bringing these people who knew no pity. Local workers just took all this while remaining outwardly calm, because they were not really ready to become labourers. Many local people who were accepted into the hoist team fell from the helicopter, because they were not equipped with sufficient knowledge of safety at work.

Several local workers fell from the helicopter holding the rope to attach it, for example one worker who was caught in the trees on the side of Mount Wabu-Sugapa. No-one came to his help but fortunately the helicopter released the rope. The worker, called Didimus Japugai was caught in the branches of a tree. Local people’s crops were damaged by the downdraught from the helicopter as it landed with its cargo of tools for the company’s. The owners of the land asked to be paid for the damage done to ther crops by Freeport’s helicopter, but nothing could be done because the process was handed over to local police and military.

So the people had to gracefully accept this injustice.

Exploration took place in vital places for the local people’s livelihood, such as their hunting grounds, the places they would find wood or rattan, and the land they cultivated. The Sugapa-Bilagae base-camp was tightly guarded by police and military who forbade the people to roam around the base-camp both day and night. Once two or three pigs from Bilogae villagers were killed by guards without letting the village chief know beforehand. The guards then asked for half of the meat, in exchange for the bullets they had lost they said, and like-it-or-not the pigs’ owners had to once again gracefully accept, afraid of being beaten or shot by the security forces.

At night the people from the Bilogae (Wabu) base camp would take advantage of their situation and bring underage girls and even several married women from the village for sex. Local workers were encouraged to gamble and other negative actvities. When a local worker wanted to visit a sick family member they were told go to work or be fired, that’s how the workers were treated at the time.

PT Freeport, using PT Minersave as it’s vehicle, felt at liberty to explore the land, forests and rivers of Wabu, Intan Jaya as if it was land that belonged to nobody. Compensation for the flora and fauna has still not been paid to the holders of customary rights over this land until the present day.

As a result, PT Freeport destroyed the natural environment which protected the people’s animals and plants, and so all who lived there evacuated to places where it was possible to live better and more peacefully.

That is the story of how PT Freeport, by means of PT Minersave, was able to enter Intan Jaya regency and assume that the natural environment of Intan Jaya was without an owner, leaving it free to explore just as it pleased.

Recommendation letter not legitimate

The recommendation letter below was issued by the caretaker leader (Bupati) of Intan Jaya Regency Maximus Zonggonau and the head of Intan Jaya People’s Representative Council Herenius Sondegau without co-ordination, discussion or input from Intan Jaya’s indigenous people.

Recommendation letter number: 65/REK/BUP./IJ/2012 states:

“based on the Director of PT IRJA EASTERN MINERALS letter Number IM/08/II/2012 dated 16th February 2012, the Bupati of Intan Jaya hereby grants its recommendation to PT. IRJA EASTERN MINERALS to make use of the protected forest of Intan Jaya regency for exploration activities. In the course of carrying out these  activities it is intended that all valid regulations are obeyed, especially to protect the environment in the conservation forest.”

Such laws had never been obeyed by any of the exploration and exploitation activities carried out in Sugapa during the years before this note was written.

Unilateral Claims

The Elected Bupati and vice-Bupati of Intan Jaya Regency, Natalis Tabuni, Ss, Msi and Fr. Yan Kobogayau, Sth, M Div have stated that they are “able to  develop and unearth Intan Jaya’s natural potential”.

Natalis Tabuni’s statement to journalists which was reported in rthe print and eletronic media Bintang Papua and Papua Pos Nabire is a unilateral claim because the population of Intan Jaya in general depends on the natural environment and rivers such as Wabu, Kemabu, Mbiabu for their livelihoods, and the location of Intan Jaya is extremely unsuitable for a mining company’s operations.

Most people in Intan Jaya live along the aforementioned rivers. If a mining company manages to force its way in, the mine waste would clearly be disposed of in Intan Jaya’s rivers. Meaning that water, land, the environment and the people would all be affected by this chemical waste which will result in the slow but sure extinction of local ethnic groups.

PT Freeport, which through PT Minersave has been operating in Wabu Sugapa Intan Jaya in recent years, and is still active in the area, is what has become of John Cutts’ strategy of taking advantage of the local people’s limited  understanding.

PT Freeport commenced operations on 28th September 1991, but until the present day customary land rights holders have not granted their agreement to co-operate. Until today people are still seeking redress for the damage to the flora and fauna, especially for the pollution of water resources and illegal logging.

The people are asking for PT Freeport to be stopped, because the company has not made agreements with community leaders, indigenous leaders, church leaders, women leaders, youth leaders or intellectuals and students from the Moni people who inhabit the land between Mbulu-Mbulu and Anepone-Sanepone.

The people of Intan Jaya are in general agreement and spread the word from church to church, from village to village and in every district of Intan Jaya to stop the mining company on their territory. So, whoever it is that is that is letting the mining company force its way into Intan Jaya, whether for exploration or exploitation, should stop right now. If any permissions have been given they should be immediately revoked, because it constitutes an attempt to kill and wipe out the people of Intan Jaya, whether directly or indirectly.

People will be killed directly as a result of the security operations around the mining area, keeping indigenous people out so they cannot disturb mining, which will surely end up with people being imprisoned and killed, as well as provoking wars between tribes and clans who will end up killing one another as the riches of nature that indigenous people can access disappear into nothing. [translator’s note: all of this already happens on a regular basis around Freeport’s existing mine near Timika.]

Indirect killing comes neatly packaged, structured and planned and is divided up between government, NGOs and churches, alongside the effects of alcohol, HIV/AIDS and chemical waste polluting Intan Jaya’s rivers. We often read in the print and electronic media about protracted conflicts caused by mining. The evidence shows there is a high risk of conflict in mining areas the world over. These conflicts are deliberately created by people with vested interests in the natural riches belonging to the indigenous people, but once they start it is difficult for anyone to stop the conflict.

Statement of Opinion

As residents and students of Intan Jaya Regency involved in the Somatua Intan Jaya Independent Community of Students (Komunitas Mahasiswa Independen Somatua Intan Jaya (KOMISI)), we wish to emphatically state that:

Firstly, as we have seen, read and heard, mining the world over results in conflict. Therefore we strongly reject the irresponsible and inhumane attempts that are being made to allow a mining company to operate.

Secondly, we do not want mining companies to carry out exploration or exploitation in ant part of the territory of Intan Jaya either now or at any time to come, because that will mean that indigenous people will be wiped out from Intan Jaya.

Thirdly, if a mining company is going to force its way into Intan Jaya, it would be better if we, the people of Intan Jaya and students in KOMISI, were to all be killed straight away.

This statement has been prepared so that those with a vested interest in Intan Jaya regency will take no further action. We have only one objective, and that is that the people of Intan Jaya can be saved from the threats of large-scale foreign investment that bring no real benefits to the local people.

*This piece was published as a collaboration between KOMISI and Suara Papua editors.

Related articles

 

4

“Victor, we are ready to wreak havoc and clash with all of you” : Reflections by an unrepentant leader

by Victor Yeimo

Witness: Participant Analysis

December 3, 2012

Police Captain Kiki Kurnia: “We’re Ready To Clash.”

“Victor, we are ready to wreak havoc and clash with all of you.”

Those are the words spat out by police captain Kiki Kurnia, who yesterday (December 1) led hundreds of fully-armed police officers to put a stop to the Long March of students and the people. I was very sad to hear these words so righteously issued by the police, who present themselves as being on the side of safety. Do the police want safety, or do they not?Yeimo-ditangkap

When I was the leader of the Long March headed for Expo Waena on December 1 in Sentani, police backed by the Indonesian military had already closed off access to the people of West Papua who would pray. Since the late afternoon (30/11), Theys H. Eluay field, which is the field of (great significance and sacredness to) the West Papuan national struggle, had been controlled by the military and by the national police, although all the civil society organizations had long since said that their prayers and celebrations would take place there.

On November 19, police entered a prayer room in Aula STAKIN in Sentani and tried to stop me as I was giving a reception after prayers, and then yesterday on December 1 the people wanted to worship and eat at the Theys H. Eluay field but were prohibited, blockaded and arrested by the full force of the military. The question is, why did the military and the police force deliberately take control of the field and then shamelessly hold a traditional stone cooking event (a Indonesian-appropriated Papuan Custom) with a handful of residents who were offered money?

If the police are tasked with security, why exactly is that security so insecure when facing inhabitants who are conducting prayers peacefully? Is the Theys H. Eluay field, owned by the traditional people of West Papua, only permitted for use by the Indonesian military and the police force? If the law is just, why wasn’t police captain Kiki Kurnia charged with incitement to violence? As he himself clearly  (attempted) incited the mass action I led to commit violence on the streets in front of Dian Harapan Hospital yesterday.

If the police prohibit students from campaigning to put a stop to AIDS on West Papua’s Independence Day, why must it be prohibited? Do the police not want HIV/AIDS awareness campaigns to take place? Isn’t his proof that the police are ensuring and championing ethnic cleansing in West Papua? Why do the police prevent worship on West Papua’s Independence Day? Why do the police see more political and economic motivations than the goodwill and intentions of the people who want to interpret December 1, 2012 as World AIDS Day, the opening of Christmas festivities and the Independence Day of West Papua?

I lead my people safely and with restraint. I have personally guaranteed that I will be arrested or shot if there is a criminal act committed by people, but why in the safe Long March were we forcibly dispersed and captured like animals? Actually, who was it that committed the crime? Was it the people, or the police?

The police did not only incite the violence that happened, but yesterday (1/12) the police, through (Adjunct Senior Commissioner) Alfred Papare, publicly lied. Myself and the masses did not throw rocks at the police, however it was covered by several media sources that the police chief said we did so. In an era of openness such as this, why is there a need for mutual deceit when everybody saw yesterday that the police had no reason to blockade, arrest and attack people with tear gas? After I “escaped” from Abepura Sub-District Command, I had not received a call from the Jayapura Chief of Police, the aforementioned Alfred Papare, as stated by Wakapolda Papua, Paulus Waterpau, to Tabloid Jubi.

Better for the Police to become the Social Services

The idea of Papua’s Chief of Police, Tito Karnavian, to give out groceries and distribute help the mountain people of Papua in Jayapura and the Jayapura municipality makes me wonder a little. Has the police chief already switched functions from a chief of police who must preserve security, only to become the head of the Department of Social Services who must give social support to the people? Is this country unhealthy? Money for providing support to the people is redirected into the Police Department and the Police Department takes over the functions of the Department of Social Services.

For me, the efforts of the police department to muffle and destroy the basis of the Papua Independence conflict are obviously speculative, as well as inappropriate. Go ahead, if the police department and the Republic of Indonesia believe that our ideology can be bought off with money. Tens to hundreds of millions have been redirected to the Asrama Rusnawa Uncen, since becoming the basis for conflict, and the police are very hopeful that students will regard them as righteous people, as kind people. Well, again, it is better that the Police Institution in Jayapura be renamed as the Department of Social Security or the Department of Education, so that matters concerning the improvement of the Asrama Rusnawa Uncen and student welfare can just be taken over by the police.

Does Indonesia believe that money can silence the aspiration and ideology of independence for the people of West Papua? I am convinced the people of Papua that are given money and material aid from the police are only making use of them, because within the individual West Papuan person there is a flesh-and-blood desire for Papuan Independence, however difficult it is. So, go ahead, half-dead police and a waste of money to the people of Papua. Go ahead and pan the sympathy and dreams of the people who have hated the occupation of this land. Almost half a century practicing the policies of the Republic of Indonesia, and all models of development cannot turn the people of West Papua into people of Indonesia. Papua will rise and awaken by itself alone.

Idea of Separatists and Terrorists is a project of the TNI and Police 

There are no separatists and terrorists in West Papua; only those who demand the right to self-determination as legally protected under international law. The idea of separatists and terrorists is created by the state to disgrace the legal struggle of the West Papuan people, and created by the Indonesian military and the police with a view to expanding their territory, and their wealth. For the sake of money alone, the circumvention of the state apparatus and the deception of the state apparatus, alias “bullshitting a lot” (direct translation).

My organization, the National Committee of West Papua (KNPB), struggles in peace and does not want to create chaos that will strengthen the funds of the military and the police force. Consequently, the national police force does not like peaceful action, because in a situation that is safe and peaceful, the military and the police force will be poverty-stricken. Many security institutions in Indonesia have hundreds of troops that must be paid by the state. Moreover in Papua, there are now many civilian militias formed by the state; thousands have been recruited, and must be paid. All are created with the objective of “stripping bare” the security responsibility from the Indonesian government in West Papua that fall under the name of “eradicating separatists and terrorists.”

Forgive me; my group and I will not accept food from the military or the police, so there is no need to criminalise or drop that bomb on the National Committee of West Papua to stigmatise us, so that the project money can be maintained. These ways have become commonplace, and we are bored of them. The people are smart, and getting smarter: they have already been taught these ruses by the colonialists. Ways such as this will finally tarnish the image of the Republic of Indonesia in West Papua. So it is best not to try to painstakingly search for such an image. Oh, and yesterday in Guyana, Member of Parliament told Benny Wenda: “Oppression alone will burn the spirit of the independence struggle.”

Why not kill me, or imprison me? Why was I released? Oh, it is certainly not because I cheated. I will see this for what it truly is. There are demonstrations in the streets. Now that I have planted the seeds of resistance here and the invaders sow these seeds with their own actions. I must thank the colonialists for continuously teaching us to aspire to true humanity by means of rebellion.

Victor Yeimo wrote this article immediately upon his release from police custody on Monday December 3. 

Translated by West Papua Media volunteer translators

Related articles
0

KNPPB A Rival Organization Created By Indonesia To Compete With KNPB

by wedaumamo at KNPB News
November 17, 2012
Analysis / Opinion

Jayapura, KNPBnews – In their continuous efforts to destroy the legitimate movement of the people of West Papua who are fighting for their rights, Indonesian counter-intelligence operations have now created a rival organization called the West Papua Youth National Committee (Komite Nasional Pemuda Papua Barat, or KNPPB). The organization claims itself to be a forerunner of a self-claimed Republic of West Papua under the leadership of Yance Hembring, an agent of the Indonesian Republic.

The KNPPB, an acronym which bears a striking resemblance with KNPB, was created by Indonesia to further strike a blow at the genuine struggle for Papuan rights, led by the KNPB. The fact that Indonesia would instigate further attacks towards the good image of the political struggle of the people of West Papua was to be expected and it was also predicted. It was only a matter of time before journalists of the newspaper Bintang Papua, a number of which are mere agents of Indonesia, calculatedly published the news item concerning the establishment of this rival organ, based on information passed on by sources who are nothing more than the minions of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), and who have been paid to discredit the struggle of the people of West Papua, a struggle led by the KNPB and the people of West Papua.

Active monitoring of the online media shows that Yance Hembring’s group constitutes a faction of the OPM which has already surrendered to the Republic of Indonesia and which is now being used by Indonesia to influence and destroy the bases of the OPM. This faction is now also being used by Indonesia to recruit young people to destroy the KNPB by setting up the rival organ called KNPPB, in exchange for money.

The release today of this deceit by the newspaper Bintang Papua (issues numbers 14 and 15) has as main purpose to blacken the good image of the KNPB and to diminish the sympathy of the people of West Papua for the KNPB. Wim Metlama, KNPB’s National Spokesperson, said that Indonesia was resorting to the old ways of paying Papuans and Papuan newspapers in order to play their dirty political games and soiling the good image of the struggle of West Papua.

“Treacherous moves like these are not something new. These are old tricks that Indonesia has been using, but it has always been to no avail. And we are convinced that the people of West Papua are wise enough to recognise these dreadful tricks played by the colonisers. Even more so, this deceit only proves once again to the people of West Papua that Indonesia is in the habit of manipulating the truth and lying to the people, and precisely for that reason will they realise that the NKRI is truly an occupying colonial force in West Papua”, said Wim.

The newspaper Media Papua is unfortunately contributing to the spreading of the lie, by publishing the news item and disseminating the deceitful information into the public in West Papua. According to our monitoring, a month ago, Papua police chief Tito Karnavian had approached the board of editors of the newspaper Bintang Papua and he had asked them for their support for his colonial agenda. Soon, if not already, many agents of the printed media and other reporters in West Papua will be offered money in return for services to support the colonial program as Tito Karnavian has recently requested.

[Translated by LT]

Related articles

 

1

LP3BH-Manokwari calls for dialogue between Papua and Indonesia

COMMENT by Yan Christian Warinussy
Executive-Director of LP3BH, Manokwari
November 14, 2012In the concluding months of 2012, there have been many more acts of violence in Papua and West Papua which reflects very badly on the government of Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) at a time when development, good governance and security  are essential in the Land of Papua as an integral part of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). This is happening as a time when many countries  which are members of the UN Human Rights Council are closely watching the situation, following the  Universal Periodic Review  in May 2012, which made  180 recommendations, thirty of which were rejected by the Indonesian government.

One of the recommendations that was rejected was that arrests and detentions on the basis of Articles 106 and 110 for treason should stop. This means that the state will continue to take firm measures, possibly including the use of firearms, against peaceful actions by members of civil society who give expression to their opinions and political views which are opposed to the views of the government. Several activists of the  National Committee of West Papua (KNPB)  have been summoned and interrogated and are likely to be charged for treason. One of these activists is Alexander Nekenem, chairman of the DWP, the local parliament, who was recently summoned  by the police in Manokwari.

The Indonesian government has also rejected the recommendation regarding freedom of expression for persons who have been detained merely for taking peaceful actions, a recommendation that was made by the USA and Canada. What this means is that Filep Kara, Forkorus Yaboisembut, Edison Waromi, Selpius Bobii, Sananay Karma and Dominikus Sorabut  will continue to be deprived of their lawful right to freedom of expression.

Another very bad thing for the Papuan people is that the Indonesian government has rejected the recommendation by the Japanese government which called on Indonesia to end all violation of  human rights  by the security forces (TNI and Polri, the army and the police), because the Indonesian government claims that this is not relevant for Papua because it is not in accord with the facts, whatever they mean by the facts. In my opinion, the Indonesian government’s rejection of this means that there will continue to be an intensification of violence and hence systematic abuses of basic human rights which will continue to occur into the future in the Land of Papua.

In view of all this, as Executive Director of the LP3BH and a defender of human rights in the Land of Papua, I urge the SBY government  to open up space for dialogue  between Papua and Indonesia before the end of 2012. The SBY government should appoint a team of people to meet Father Dr. Neles Tebay, co-ordinator of the Papuan Peace Network, in order to discuss  the format of this dialogue. This would mean that by early 2013,  preparations could be started for a dialogue between the Indonesian government and the Papuan people.

In my opinion, dialogue is the best path to take, in the interests of justice, peace and dignity on both sides, as the way, according to universal standards, to resolve  the conflicting political views which have existed for such a long time, causing the deep frustration  that has borne down both on the Papuan people and the Indonesian government to this very day.

In this way, the Indonesian government would  win the respect of the international community for  having accepted that the political conflict that has lasted for such a long time should be resolved b means of dialogue.

[Translated by TAPOL]

Related articles

 

0

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑