‘If You Mess With Us You’re Dead’

via NewMatilda.com

By Jason MacLeod

indo soldier in west papua

There was nothing clandestine about the beating of human rights activist Yones Douw in West Papua last week. Jason MacLeod reports on the latest in a long pattern of public violence by the Indonesian military

“You can mess with the police,” said the Indonesian soldiers, “but if you try it with us, you’re dead.”

According to witnesses that was what was said to Yones Douw, a 42-year-old Papuan human rights defender as he was beaten with lumps of wood by soldiers from Kodim 1705, Nabire’s District Military Command in the Indonesian province of Papua. Immediately after the beating Douw went to the local Siriwini hospital but was refused treatment. Local staff demanded a letter from the police before they would treat his wounds. Douw now fears for his safety and has gone into hiding.

The incident occurred on the 15 June. Douw, a church worker with the Kingmi Church’s Bureau of Justice and Peace in Nabire, heard that a protest was going to take place at the 1705 District Military Command (Kodim) base in Nabire, Papua province, and he went to the base to monitor it. Thirty minutes after he arrived, a group of protesters turned up in three trucks, broke into the front entrance of the base and started to shatter the windows and throw objects. Douw immediately rushed into the base to calm the protesters.

In response, the military fired shots into the air and started hitting the protesters. Douw was struck on the head with pieces of wood many times. He also sustained injuries on his shoulder and wrists from the beatings. The protesters fled the scene, pursued by members of Kodim 1705 and armed troops from neighbouring Battalion 753. This is what gave Douw time to escape.

Yones Douw was not the accidental victim of some random act of violence. And the protesters he was defending were not some random mob of outraged Papuans or an attack by the Papuan Liberation Army, Papua’s lingering guerrilla force. The attack on the Nabire District Military Command was an expression of a grief stricken family angered at the senseless killing of one of their own. The family wanted to hold the military accountable for the killing of Derek Adii, a man who was beaten to death by soldiers a few weeks earlier.

In mid-May Douw, a chronicler of human rights violations in the troubled Paniai region for some years now, published a report that was picked up by Jubi, West Papua’s only independent news service. Douw’s report detailed the killing of Derek Adii on 14 May 2011. Adii, a 26-year-old Nabire man had just completed his application to join Papua’s burgeoning civil service.

According to Douw’s report, Adii was boarding the crowded passenger vessel KM Labobar at Nabire’s dock when he was beaten by six members of the military. One of the soldiers allegedly pulled out a bayonet and stabbed Adii in the head. The six men then threw his body overboard. Adii died at the scene.

Douw believes he was beaten by the military for retribution — not only for reporting Adii’s killing but also for continuing to shine a spotlight on human rights abuses in West Papua, an area the Indonesian police and military are trying to close off from international scrutiny by locking out journalists and even diplomats.

The circumstances surrounding Adii’s very public murder and Douw’s public beating in the front yard of a military base located on a main road in the middle of a town is typical of the patterns of human rights abuses in West Papua. Australian National University scholar and former Director of the Catholic Office of Justice and Peace in West Papua, Br Budi Hernawan OFM who is studying torture in West Papua, says that torture and human rights abuses in Papua are a kind of “public spectacle”.

In the 400 odd cases of torture that Hernawan has studied it is mostly poor and innocent Papuan civilians are rounded up and publicly abused. The perpetrators are nearly always the Indonesian military and police. It is classic state terror, the purpose of which is to violently pacify the population, to enforce the security apparatus’ control over human bodies and the body politic — and to intimidate and silence Papuan dissent.

It is a script that Yones Douw has refused to buy into. In the meantime other Papuans have stepped into Douw’s shoes. They are now chronicling the military’s attack on him and sending reports out to a domestic and international network in the same way that Douw has been ceaselessly reporting on the human rights abuses of others.

West Papua — Violence against indigenous women

————-
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
AHRC-FAT-021-2011
May 20, 2011

An article from Fien Jarangga & Galuh Wandita, Cultural Survival – Spring 2011 forwarded by the Asian Human Rights Commission

INDONESIA: West Papua — Violence against indigenous women

Fien Jarangga coordinates the Papuan Women’s Human Rights Network, a newly formed network of Indigenous human rights workers from Papua, Indonesia.
Galuh Wandita is a senior associate at the International Center for Transitional Justice.

Papuan women have been suffering terrible violence both outside and inside their homes for the past 40 years, and for most of that time, they’ve suffered in silence. But now a group of women has launched their own truth commission to give support to the victims and to pressure the government to change its behavior.

Papua (the western half of the island of New Guinea) has long been in a state of upheaval. When Indonesia declared independence from the Netherlands in 1945 and achieved international recognition in 1949, Papua remained under Dutch rule. Indonesia contested this situation, and in 1962 the territory’s administration was transferred to the United Nations. Part of that agreement called for an “act of free choice”—a territory-wide vote in which citizens could choose independence or becoming part of Indonesia. The vote was supposed to be universal, but in practice an Indonesian general choose 1,025 men to act as representatives of the whole population, and those representatives voted unanimously for the territory to be absorbed by Indonesia. Some Papuans claim that the process was flawed because it did not follow the one-person-one-vote model and was conducted in a context of on-going military operations, and there has been a low-level resistance movement operating in Papua ever since.

The Indonesian military and police forces, ostensibly acting against these rebels, has committed a wide range of human rights abuses, including murder, rape, torture, and kidnapping, often in secret and rarely with any consequences.

That behavior came to particular public attention in October 2010, with the circulation of a YouTube video showing three Indonesian soldiers torturing two Papuan men. The soldiers were tried by a military court, which sentenced them to less than a year in prison for “not following orders” (the Indonesian military code does not recognize torture as a punishable offense).

Indonesian military presence remains strong in Papua, and the number of Indonesian settlers from other islands is quickly outgrowing the number of indigenous Papuans. Papua was granted “special autonomy” status in 2001, with legislation to establish a human rights court and a truth and reconciliation commission “to clarify the history” of Papua. To date, none of these provisions for justice have been established, while atrocities committed against the Indigenous Peoples continue.

So, more than a year ago, a group of Indigenous Papuan women gathered to talk about the violence that we have experienced. We wanted to look back to the past, because we knew that there needs to be a reckoning, a way to listen to Indigenous women who experienced violence since the time of conflict started more than 40 years ago. We wanted to write down, for the first time, women’ s stories of rape and abuse that took place during military campaigns in Papua. We also wanted to listen to stories of Indigenous women beaten by their husbands, because we know that the violence in our private lives is also connected to the violence that took place during times of political conflict.

In May 2009, 19 Indigenous women and 3 men from 11 organizations across Papua met for 4 days to discuss how we could we begin to collect some of these stories. With support from the National Women’s Commission and assistance from the International Center for Transitional Justice, we developed some forms and came up with a plan to find these women, convince them to tell their story, and write those stories down. Working for more than a year, we were able to collect stories from 261 Indigenous women survivors of violence.

The team worked for more than six months interviewing victims and witnesses, as well as conducting group interviews while making maps and timelines together, to jog each other’s memories. Interviews were analyzed and discussed together by the team, and a report and recommendations were drafted and discussed in workshops held in Jayapura. This participatory approach was used to ensure transfer of knowledge and skills to Indigenous Papuan women involved in this effort.

These are some of the stories we collected:

1967, military operations were conducted in the town of Biak and began to move to the villages. In 1969 went home to Swaipak, Biak staying there during the Sadar operations. The Yospan became a threat to parents, because they had to let their young daughters ; in fact, some parents pressured their daughters to go to the Yospan rather than be targeted with physical violence or threatened… In the middle of the night the people were woken up… the young girls were made to dance Yospan then have sexual relations. The troops said to the parents and husbands, ‘You must understand.’

During a dance party organized by the troops in Jayapura district, around 1989, a fight broke out between some community members. Some soldiers intervened:

The soldiers brought my sister in law and told her to swallow a battery, until she was coughing. They wouldn’t allow us to bring her to the hospital . . . . The next day, they brought me and to their post . . . . They opened our clothes, and told us to stand in water for hours . . . . Then they made us sleep on the beach for about one hour. We were given no food; we were very hungry. Then they forced to rape me. After that they made us walk to the post naked; at the post a picture was taken of us.

But we also heard stories of violence in the home:

Fighting in families in my neighborhood usually happens after our husbands consume alcohol . . .CT (a local brand) . . . . When we wives are beaten to almost half dead by our drunken husbands, the crazed husbands don’t get arrested or taken away. Maybe this is also because other than some people who sell CT, there are also policemen who sell and consume (alcohol). So how will the police take care of security?

And how Indigenous women are susceptible to HIV/AIDS:

I was married when I was 14 years old. When I was in elementary school, in fifth grade, I was forced by my family to enter a traditional marriage with a chief who already had three wives. I tried to resist; I wanted to go to school like my other friends. But the chief kept pressuring my family, so I had no choice . . . . After a year, the chief brought a new wife from the town and told us this is the fifth wife. Since the fifth wife arrived, our family started getting sick . with my husband, who died, then wife number five, then three, then second, and first. They all died in one year… After being examined (at the hospital), I was infected by HIV/AIDS. This is a new illness for us. We were told to take ARV medication regularly.

Finally, on April 19, 2010 we produced a 90-page report called “Enough Already” on violence against women that took place during 1963-2009. We presented this report to the Papuan Indigenous People’s Council, an official body established by the Special Autonomy law for Papua to protect Indigenous People’s rights, and to the National Women’s Commission. The Special Autonomy law was passed in 2001, and it includes the establishment of a truth commission and a court to try human rights violations. But until now, none of these has been established. Many other parts of the Special Autonomy law have also not been implemented.

Main Findings and Recommendations
Our report documents more than 135 cases of state violence against women and 113 cases of violence in the family, using as our guide the definitions in the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. As mentioned above, we purposefully looked at both state and domestic violence to reflect what we have experienced in our lives. Indigenous women experience violence in the context of the political conflict in Papua, where we are displaced during military action, often becoming victims of rape, abuse, and other human rights violations. At the same time, Indigenous women are reporting high rates of domestic violence perpetrated by their husbands or partners, while receiving little protection from police or state agencies. Ironically, the influx of funds as part of the special autonomy package granted to Papua since 2001 seems to have increased the level of alcohol consumption, unprotected sex, and incidents of domestic violence. Similarly, special autonomy has not become a deterrent to human rights violations. Cases of rape by the military have continued to take place after reformation (1998) and special autonomy (2001). In fact, we found cases where women victims of human rights violations later become victims of domestic violence due to the stigma they experience as victims.

The crimes by the military and police that we documented included killings and disappearances (8 cases), attempted killings and shootings (5), illegal detention (18), assault (21), torture (9), sexual torture (6), rape (52), attempted rape (2), sexual slavery (5), sexual exploitation (9), forced contraception or abortion (4), and displacement (24). And those were just among the women who gave testimony.

Looking at the stories we collected, we made some findings regarding the conditions that perpetuate and contribute to violence against Indigenous women in Papua:

1. The central government maintains a security approach that overuses violence, with impunity for perpetrators of human rights violations, including gender-based violations.
2. There is discrimination against women in the Papuan Indigenous culture which leads to a tolerance towards violence against women.
3. The continued conflict (over natural resources, the political situation, and local-to-national-level struggle for power) has created a context that leads to an increase in incidents of violence against women, both in the public and private realms.
4. There is a lack of response and political will from the government to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in general, and specifically to the problem of violence against women.
5. Indigenous Papuan women experience layers of trauma and disempowerment without access to any interventions, causing a cycle of victimization.

We made recommendations to the Indonesian central government, calling for accountability, including acknowledgment of the truth regarding human rights violations; establishment of a truth commission and human rights court for Papua, as required under the Special Autonomy law; and the political commitment to enter into a peaceful dialogue with Papuan stakeholders.

Reform recommendations, including vetting and trials for those who committed crimes, were made to Indonesia’s armed forces. We also made recommendations to the Papuan local government, legislative body, and the Papuan Indigenous People’s Council to take concrete steps to eradicate violence against women, including developing a comprehensive approach to prevent and respond to domestic violence, and a local mechanism based on law for the rehabilitation of victims.

We handed over the report in a simple ceremony at the Papuan Indigenous People’s Council building in Abepura, where council officials, members of our team, commissioners and staff from the Women’s Commission, representatives of victims interviewed for the report, and other civil society members gathered to witness the handing over of the report. The chair of the council’s Working Group on Religion set the tone of the event when he led the opening prayer by articulating the need for acknowledgment. “We pray for those who have been tortured; we pray that God gives us strength and hope that there will be improvement in our lives. We also pray for those who committed this violence, so that they see themselves for what they have done.” The head of the council praised members of the documentation team as representing “the women of Papua who have won this first battle.” He acknowledged that one of the most difficult challenges is changing their own culture “so that cultural violence can be addressed and acknowledged.” He underlined the need for the elimination of violence, “even when our people say that this is normal.” “We now have to start the second battle,” he said.

A musical group and local choir sang songs that brought tears to all of us attending the ceremony, expressing the deep emotions in the struggle against oppression and racism of the Papuan people. Excerpts from some of the lyrics:

Black is my skin, curly is my hair, I am Papua…
Even when the sky falls down, we are Papua

Small Bits of Truth: Follow-up Activities
The work that we did is an example of how Indigenous groups are beginning to use human rights tools to recover and acknowledge the truth about past violations. In a context of impunity, where the debate about the need for a truth commission may or may not lead to the establishment of one, we are trying to make our voices heard. So far, what Indigenous women have experienced has not been acknowledged by the government. So we are at least acknowledging this ourselves.

Since we finished the report, we have formed a network for further work. We plan to work on how to help the women victims’ take positive steps to healing, while also pressuring the government to recognize their stories, and commit to stopping the violence.

Hana Hikoyabi formally challenges interior minister for rejecting her membership of the MRP

From Bintang Papua 1 May 2011,[Abridged in translation by TAPOL]

By Hana Hikoyabi

Although I was elected democratically as a member of the MRP – Majelis Rakyat Papua – from election constituency 1 and my election was confirmed by the  the district chief and the governor, my membership has been rejected by the Interior Minister, like someone who has been found guilty though nothing has been proven in a court of law, I wish herewith the challenge the minister’s decision which is quite without any justification.

I fully conformed with all the procedures as required. including police requirement, for the district  of Jayapura district, the Keerom district for the period 2011 – 2016.

According to informed from the MRP secretary I was referred to  as being  a person not suitable for membership because I do not conform with the requirements.

According to government decision 64/2008, anyone whose membership is not acceptable can seek clarification.

I object to the decision of the interior minister to the effect that the membership of Dra Hana Salomina Hikoyabi and Drs Agus Alue Alua cannot be confirmed as members. as we do not conform with the requirements under article 4 (c), (d)  and (h). This article  says that members must be loyal  to the  Pancasila and have a strong commitment  to protecting the community and loyalty to the Indonesian Constitution, should be a person of high moral standing and be a model to the community.  and has not been found guilty of anything under law. These requirements are set down clearly under law.

According to PP54/ 2004 regarding the MRP,  the person shall not have been found guilty in a court of law for committing a crime and receiving a sentence of five year or more.

In accordance with the above,  it is clear that the decision to reject my appointment as  member of the MRP is in conflict with the law, because it is not based on any court verdict.

This places me in the difficult position of  having been responsible for an act of treason – makar – whereas at the time that I nominated myself for member of the MRP form 2011 – 2016, I received an official confirmation from the local police and from the local court of law that I am well-behaved and have never been found guilty of anything or convicted of anything

The minister’s decision means that the statements issued by the police and the Jayapura district court are unlawful. It also means that the administrative procedures regarding personnel cannot be relied upon as the way of handling the governance. in accordance with the rule of law.

[Note: The MRP consists of Papuans from three groups, women, youth and traditional clans.]

Agus Alue Alua: A life of dedication to the Papuan People

Obituary of Agus Alue Alua
A life of dedication to the Papuan People 

Agus Alue Alua was born on 13 September 1962.  He studied at the Catholic secondary school Dok V, Jayapura and later worked as a teacher, then spent three years studying at the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium.

From 1997, he took part in discussions within Catholic circles about the need to wage a struggle for the rights of the Papuan people, always stressing the importance of eschewing violence and pursuing the path of peace.

During the reformasi era that followed in the wake of the downfall of Suharto, he made good use of the newly-found freedoms to discuss such issues as development and the basic rights of the people of West Papua. Under discussion at the time were two alternatives for West Papua, autonomy or independence from Indonesia.

Agus Alua was one of several Papuan intellectuals to be appointed to the Committee of 100 which held important talks with President B.J. Habibie on 25 February 1999.  According to a colleague, he impressed everyone as he spoke with conviction and dignity: ‘We want our freedom,’ he said. ‘We want to organise our own homeland.’

The meeting ended inconclusively. The Papuans were advised to go away and consider their situation but the talks were never resumed. He was one of the first Papuans following that aborted encounter with Habibie to spread the idea about the need for dialog with Indonesia.

Catholic church leaders made good use of the more conducive political atmosphere to discuss the role of the church in Papua’s political struggle. While Bishop Leo Laba Ladjar OFM who was then the Bishop of the Jayapura Diocese, was hesitant about siding with the Papuan people, Agus who was a lecturer at the STFT -Fajar Timur (the High School of Philosophy and Theology) at the time challenged these thoughts, warning that if the Church failed to side with the Papuan people, he and others would set up a Papuan Catholic Church.

At the historic Second Papua Congress in June 2000, Agus Alua was elected deputy secretary-general of the Central Council of the newly-created PDP, the Papuan Presidium Council, one of two Papuans from the Central Highlands, along with Tom Beanal, and two from the coastal regions, one of whom was Theys Hijo Eluay, who became chairman of the PDP. Theys was assassinated in November 2001 by members of the army’s elite force, Kopassus. As a member of the PDP Central Council, Agus Alua played a key role in drafting documents that gave voice to the need to struggle for the Papuan people’s aspirations.

He later became the Rector of STFT-Fajar Timor, where he had previously been a student, as well as Director of the Catholic Senior Seminary. He also wrote and published several books about the culture of the Dani people and about a whole range of Papuan political issues.

However, the Papuan spring ended in 2002 when Kopassus agents infiltrated the PDP leadership and set about destroying the movement from within. Some of its leaders withdrew, several died under mysterious circumstances, while others gave up the struggle and threw in their lot with Indonesia. Agus remained true to the Papuan struggle, using all means possible at home and abroad, frequently visiting countries in the Pacific and Europe to win support for the Papuan people.

When the Special Autonomy Law, OTSUS, was enacted in October 2001, a special council composed solely of Papuans, the Majelis Rakyat Papua, the Papuan People’s Council, was set up which he recognised as an institution of crucial importance in the fight for Papuan aspirations. He became its first chairman with the support of Bishop Leo Ladjar, a position he held for the first five-year term of the Council till shortly before his death.

He fought strenuously throughout his term to expose the malicious strategies of the central government which sought to undermine OTSUS. From the start, the central government had been half-hearted about OTSUS and had even delayed its establishment for several years, fearing that it might become a springboard for Papuan political aspirations One of the moves from the central government to undermine the unity of the Papuan people was the decision to split West Papua into two provinces which Agus Alua vehemently opposed. He continually worked hard to counter the government’s attempts to create divisions and conflicts among the Papuan people.

After the creation of the two provinces, he insisted that there should be a single MPR and whenever Jakarta pushed for policies to undermine OTSUS, he strenuously resisted, along with his close colleagues Frans Wospakriek, former rector of Cendrawasih University, and Hanna Hikoyobi who was deputy secretary-general of the MRP.

Among the many central government decisions he opposed was Presidential Decree No 77 which banned the use of Papuan symbols such as the Morning Star flag, the mambruk bird and the Papuan song, Hai Tanahku Papua, insisting that these were legitimate cultural symbols provided for within the terms of OTSUS. Another of his decisions was to make it obligatory for all positions of leadership in the Papuan provinces and regions to be held by indigenous Papuans.

Before ending his term as chairman of the first MRP, Agus oversaw the adoption of eleven recommendations. These recommendations included a declaration that OTSUS had been a failure and should be returned to Jakarta, that there should be an internationally-mediated dialogue, facilitated by a neutral third party, and that a referendum should be held on the question of Papuan sovereignty. These eleven recommendations comprehensively set forth the basic demands of the Papuan people and continue to inspire the Papuan struggle to this day.

Agus Alua was always steadfast in his support for Papuan efforts to make Special Autonomy a reality against constant obfuscations from central government, and continually used his outstanding intellectual abilities to promote Papaun interests and aspirations.

At the time of his tragic death, the second-term MRP was due to be inaugurated amid disputes about its membership, with Jakarta rejecting the appointment of Agus Alu and Hanna Hikoyobi. According to sources in Jayapura, these two had been elected as members of the new body, against the wishes of central government. The appointment of the second-term MRP is still in dispute; some of his colleagues believe that the pressures and intimidation he experienced at the time plunged him into deep depression, leading to his untimely death on 7 April. On that day, he was found lying on the floor at home and was rushed to hospital but was dead on arrival.

He is survived by his wife Cornelia Pekey and his three children, Liberta Claudia Alua, Liberto Claudia Alua and Hilerti Alua.

Carmel Budiardjo [with help from Octovianus Mote]

Tunisia… Egypt… Libya… Let’s look closer to home

by Daniel Scoullar

originally appeared at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au

The mass uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and other nearby countries have put despotic rulers, human rights abuses and self-determination into our nightly news bulletins and daily conversations in a way that happens very rarely.

The seemingly contagious way these movements for freedom have spread from country to country makes them particularly fascinating, but there is another reason why they have captured the public imagination. It’s because Australians recognise the ‘fair go’ principle, which can also be put in terms of the human right for every person to be safe from harm, to have control over their lives and to have a say in how their country’s run – regardless of whether they live in Bundoora or Benghazi.

In turn, many of us would also be surprised to hear that we have state sponsored violence and political exclusion much closer to home. They would be further surprised to hear these abuses are taking place within Indonesia, a case study for positive social, economic and political reform.

Despite holidaying in Bali, seeing Jakarta on the news or even watching a wildlife documentary shot in the Sumatran jungle, you could be excused for never having heard of West Papua. It comprises the western half of the island of New Guinea (the eastern half belongs to Papua New Guinea) and a collection of small islands.

West Papua’s landscape is one of tropical islands, coconut strewn beaches, impenetrable rain forests and rugged snow capped mountain peaks. It is home to around three million people, including some of the last remaining humans still untouched by the modern world.

West Papua’s modern history is marked by exploitation and resilience. Colonial explorers claimed it as Dutch territory in the 1600s, the Japanese and Americans made it a key battleground of World War II and the newly independent Indonesian nation invaded and forcibly occupied the territory in 1962, just 13 years before they would do the same in East Timor.

In the 50 years since then, West Papua has been ruled as a country-apart within Indonesia. This is somewhat ironic given West Papua is physically, culturally and historically separate from the rest of Indonesia. Its traditional ties run east and south to Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, northern Australia and the Pacific.

Where military and police abuses were curtailed elsewhere, they were encouraged in West Papua. While ‘unity in diversity’ was the national motto, West Papuan traditional culture was violently suppressed and almost a million ‘transmigrants’ were shipped in and given the reigns of local government and the economy. Even as the post-Suharto human rights reforms resulted in greater freedom of speech for those in Jakarta, incarceration or death are still the standard penalties for raising the Morning Star flag in West Papua. An estimated 100,000 local people have been killed during the occupation.

In 2007 I travelled from East Timor through Indonesia, West Papua and Papua New Guinea on my way back to Australia. My lasting memories are of friendly West Papuans inviting me into their homes to practice English with their children and heavily armed military personnel/police stopping me in the street for seemingly random questioning. When I returned to Melbourne, I met members of the West Papuan refugee community here and learned more about the extent of the abuses taking place in their homeland.

A recent example captured on video and shared on the internet, shows two Papuan men being cruelly tortured by security forces, including one having his genitals burnt. Other examples include activists being shot at demonstrations – or just disappearing. Local prisons are full of political prisoners who have committed no crime other than raising their voice.

It is also important to differentiate this critique of state sponsored human rights abuses and a lack of self-determination from a more general attack on Indonesia as a nation or its culture.

As someone who speaks Indonesian moderately well and has lived and travelled in the region, I know first hand the beautiful diversity within Indonesia’s awe inspiring 17,500 island archipelago. The majority of its 240 million people are not disputing their place in this nation state and democratic, social, economic and political progress continues in most areas.

Nevertheless, acknowledging Indonesia’s strengths is not the same as writing a blank cheque to the worst elements within its military and government. After 24 years of silence, Australia finally found the moral and political strength to take a stand on behalf of the East Timorese people and this is what is needed again, not just from our Prime Minister Julia Gillard, but from other world leaders within our region and right across the globe.

We all know that international diplomacy can be a dirty business where economic and political interests take precedence over doing what is right. We should acknowledge that it is politics and economics that are the key barriers blocking the Australian government from advocating on behalf of the West Papuan people. There is no easy villain such as Muammar Gaddafi to hold up as a symbol of evil. It’s more complicated than that.

International diplomacy can also be a powerful force for improving lives. While East Timor remains poor, I didn’t meet a single person there who wanted to go back to Indonesian rule. Australia is a regional leader, particularly in the areas of good governance and human rights protection, and we should not shy away from this role. We have the power to make a difference in West Papua and, in turn, we carry the corresponding responsibility to do so.

If we simply cast our gaze to distant parts of the world, where people are paying with their lives for basic freedoms, we will overlook those closer to home paying with their own lives for those same freedoms.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑