Tag: Human RIghts Watch

NGOs Say US Got it Wrong on Indonesian Human Rights

FYI

Dessy Sagita | April 11, 2011

Indonesian activists on Sunday criticized the US government for praising Indonesia’s progress on human rights, saying that the barometer used for the report could be misleading.

“I’m a bit concerned with the diplomatic statements made by some countries regarding Indonesia’s progress on human rights, because it could give people the wrong perception about what’s really happening,” Haris Azhar, coordinator of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), told the Jakarta Globe.

As in previous editions, the US State Department’s annual survey on human rights pointed to concerns in Indonesia, this year including accounts of unlawful killings in violence-torn Papua along with violations of freedom of religion.

But US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while presenting on Friday the mammoth, 7,000-page global report, pointed to Indonesia as a success story.

“Indonesia boasts a vibrant free media and a flourishing civil society at the same time as it faces up to challenges in preventing abuses by its security forces and acting against religious intolerance,” she was quoted by foreign wire agencies as saying.

The survey covers the period before Islamic fanatics brutally killed three members of the Ahmadiyah sect in early February, raising questions over Indonesia’s commitment to safeguard minority rights.

The concern over Papua is primarily a reference to the torture of two civilians there last year by soldiers. They were subsequently court-martialed in January but given sentences of less than a year, a punishment slammed by the influential group Human Rights Watch as far too lenient to send a message that abuse was unacceptable.

Kontras’s Haris said both indicators presented by the US government — that Indonesia has been progressing in terms of media independence and better access for civil societies to voice their concern — were also incorrect.

“Freedom of journalism? I don’t think so. It’s still fresh in our minds that several journalists have been brutally attacked because of their reporting, some were even murdered,” he said.

“And in terms of flourishing civil societies, it’s true, non-government organizations are mushrooming, but what’s the point if human rights defenders and anticorruption activists are assaulted?” he added.

According to Kontras, in 2010 alone more than 100 human rights activists here were victimized and many of the perpetrators remain free.

And according to Reporters Without Borders, when it comes to press freedom, Indonesia ranks very low, much worse than it did several years ago when Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid was the president.

The US report in some ways echoes progress noted by New York-based Human Rights Watch in its own annual review of human rights practices around the globe, released in January. Then it noted that while serious human rights concerns remained, Indonesia had over the past 12 years made great strides in becoming a stable, democratic country with a strong civil society and independent media.

But Andreas Harsono, from Human Rights Watch, said it was perplexing that the US government would compliment Indonesia’s progress on rights.

“It’s a big joke,” he said. “Attacks against Ahmadiyah have been happening since 2008, after the joint ministerial decree was issued, and attacks against churches during SBY’s six-year tenure are even more prevalent than during the five decades in which Sukarno and Suharto ruled,” he said.

Additional reporting by AP, AFP 

Related Articles
0

Buchtar Tabuni complains to police chief about his treatment

LETTER OF COMPLAINT FROM BUCHTAR TABUNI TO THE CHIEF OF POLICE IN PAPUA

Police Isolation Cell, 18 January, 2011

To:
Police-General Bekto Suprapto,

With respect,

With regard to my detention in a police isolation cell for almost two
months, I wish to raise the following problems with the Chief of Police
in Papua:

1. Will the police in Papua explain what my status is, whether I am a
detainee (tapol) or a convicted political prisoner (narapidana). If I am
being held as a detainee in connection with the riot that occurred in
Abepura Prison on 3 December 2010, I ask to be given an arrest warrant
by the police for the period that I have been held in a police isolation
cell . And whether what I myself did together with Filep Karma at the
time of the riot was not in fact an attempt to calm things down while
trying to be a link between the prison officers and the prisoners who
were involved in the riot. If my status is that of a narapidana, I
hereby ask to be transferred to Abepura Prison Class IIA. This is
because being held in an isolation cell by the police in Papua has had
the following very damaging consequences for me:

a) My father, Jen Tabuni, who was 54 years old, passed away on
Sunday, 9 January 2011 in Papani Kampung, in the Papuan interior. The
cause of death was that, after hearing that I had been taken from a
police cell and thinking that I had been kidnapped, he suffered a
stroke, fainted and died. This was because there was no information
about my whereabouts after I had been separated and placed in an
isolation cell by the Papuan police, without any clear reason being
given for this;

b) Ever since being separated and held in an isolation cell of the
Papuan Police, I have not received any edible food and on some
occasions, I have not been given any food and drink at all, as a result
of which I have been drinking the water in the tub in the bathroom. The
lack of decent food and drink has given me serious gastric problems;

c) My body is turning yellow and I often feel giddy when I stand up.
This is because of the lack of sunlight, the lack of vegetables and
because the vegetables I do eat are boiled as a result of which I am
anaemic as well as suffering from gastritis which means that my health
is deteriorating.

2. If the police here in Papua fail to respond speedily to my
complaints, I will go on hunger strike until my complaints are dealt with.

Letter of complaint from:

Buchtar Tabuni

Papuan political prisoner

Buchtar Tabuni

1

HRW: Indonesia: Hold Abusers From Military Accountable

Human Rights Watch logo
Image via Wikipedia

Human Rights Watch (New York)

January 25, 2011

For Immediate Release

Indonesia: Hold Abusers From Military Accountable

More Than 100 Political Prisoners Held for Protesting Peacefully

(New York, January 25, 2011) – The Indonesian government should ensure
that soldiers responsible for abuses are appropriately prosecuted and
punished, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2011. The
January 24, 2011 verdict in a Papua military tribunal of eight to ten
months imprisonment for soldiers who engaged in torture was woefully
inadequate, Human Rights Watch said.

The 649-page report, Human Rights Watch’s 21st annual review of human
rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights
trends in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide. Over the
past 12 years, Indonesia, the report says, has made great strides in
becoming a stable, democratic country with a strong civil society and
independent media, but serious human rights concerns remain.

“Senior officials must both talk the talk and walk the walk on human
rights,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights
Watch. “The military should stop shielding its officers from
prosecution, and the government needs to hold abusers accountable.”

In July 2010, the US government lifted its ban on military assistance
to Kopassus, Indonesia’s elite special forces, despite continuing
concerns about its human rights record. Strong evidence of security
force involvement in torture emerged in 2010. Defense Minister Purnomo
Yusgiantoro pledged to suspend soldiers credibly accused of serious
human rights abuses, to discharge those convicted of abuse, and to
cooperate with their prosecution. But only a handful of cases made it
to military tribunals, and the charges did not reflect the gravity of
the abuses committed.

In October, a 10-minute cell phone video came to light that showed
Indonesian soldiers interrogating and brutally torturing two Papuan
men, Tunaliwor Kiwo and Telangga Gire. In the video, Kiwo screams as a
piece of burning wood is repeatedly jabbed at his genitals. After
pressure from foreign governments, the military finally held a
tribunal in Jayapura, Papua, in January. But it is only tried three of
six soldiers in the video – Second Sgt. Irwan Rizkiyanto, First Pvt.
Jackson Agu, and First Pvt. Thamrin Mahamiri of the Army’s Strategic
and Reserve Command (Kostrad) 753rd battalion – on military
discipline charges, rather than for torture. The three were sentenced
to ten months, nine months, and eight months respectively. Military
prosecutors only sought sentences of up to 12 months rather than the
maximum 30 months as allowed under the military criminal code.

Another torture case captured on video in 2010 involved several
soldiers kicking and beating villagers in Papua. Four soldiers from
the same Kostrad 753rd battalion were tried on military disciplinary
grounds and were sentenced only to five to seven months in prison. The
convictions are on appeal before the Surabaya high military tribunal.

These two cases were unusual in that the ill-treatment was captured on
video, but for years Human Rights Watch has documented serious human
rights violations in Papua for which soldiers have never been held to
account. Human Rights Watch called on the US to publicly clarify its
relationship with the Kostrad 753rd battalion and the individuals
involved in this incident, in order to ensure compliance with the
Leahy law.

“Rather than cooperating with civilian authorities and suspending the
soldiers involved as soon as the video appeared, the Indonesian
government has dragged its feet and reluctantly done the bare minimum
to try and make this go away,” said Pearson. “This is not the new and
improved army that the defense minister promised, but the same old
military impunity we’ve seen for decades in Indonesia.”

The government did little to curb attacks and discrimination against
religious, sexual, and ethnic minorities during 2010. On several
occasions, militant Islamic groups mobilized large groups of private
citizens and attacked places of worship of religious minorities.
Police frequently failed to arrest the perpetrators of the violence.

While Indonesia has vibrant media, throughout 2010 Indonesian
authorities invoked harsh laws to prosecute individuals who raised
controversial issues, chilling peaceful expression. Indonesia’s
criminal libel, slander, and “insult” laws prohibit deliberately
“insulting” a public official and intentionally publicizing statements
that harm another person’s reputation, even if those statements are
true. For instance, in early 2010, Tukijo, a farmer from Yogyakarta,
was sentenced to six months’ probation and a three-month suspended
prison sentence for criminal defamation after he argued with a local
official regarding a land assessment.

The government has imprisoned more than 100 activists from the
Moluccas and Papua for rebellion for peacefully voicing political
views, holding demonstrations, and raising separatist flags. In
August, the authorities arrested 21 Southern Moluccas activists in
Ambon and Saparua and charged them with treason for planning to fly
balloons and Southern Moluccas Republic flags during a visit by
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The country’s political prisoners include Filep Karma, 51, a Papuan
civil servant imprisoned for organizing a Papuan independence rally on
December 1, 2004, and Buchtar Tabuni, 31, a leader of the West Papua
National Committee, a Papuan independence organization that has grown
more radical since his imprisonment.

Government restrictions on access to Papua by foreign human rights
monitors and journalists imposed when Indonesia took over Papua in
1969 remained in place in 2010.

“By keeping the foreign media and rights organizations out of Papua,
the Indonesian government is all but admitting that serious abuses
persist,” Pearson said. “Ending those restrictions would be a first
step in reversing Papua’s downward spiral.”

To read Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2011 chapter on Indonesia,
please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/indonesia

To read the Human Rights Watch World Report 2011, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011

For more information, please contact:
In Perth, Elaine Pearson (English): +61-415-489-428 (mobile)
In Washington, DC, Sophie Richardson (English, Mandarin):
+1-917-721-7473 (mobile)
In Jakarta, Andreas Harsono (English, Bahasa Indonesia):
+62-815-950-9000 (mobile)

Related Articles
1

Reader reply: Australia and Kopassus

http://securityscholar.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/reader-reply-australia-and-kopassus/

Security Scholar

Reader reply: Australia and Kopassus

14/01/2011
by Natalie Sambhi

Associate editor at Australian Policy Online and Researcher with the Monash Global Terrorism Research Centre at Monash University, Andrew Zammit provides comment to my post on Australia’s options with Kopassus.

Comer’s critique of the Leahy amendment highlights many flaws in its implementation, but his suggested modifications don’t really provide a way forward for dealing with Kopassus. His suggestion that Leahy should include a mechanism to re-legitimise units which have cleaned themselves up and purged human rights-abusers is perfectly sensible. But the problem with Kopassus, made clear in the human rights reports mentioned in the Deutsche Welle article you cited, is not only past violations but continuing ones, albeit on a far lesser scale. So a Leahy amendment with Cromer’s modifications would probably continue to restrict aid to many Kopassus units.

A theme underlying Comer’s piece was that efforts to tackle human rights abuses are more likely to be successful when they are consistent. I’d suggest it follows from that that Australia’s position should be closer to that of the US Congress.

US Congressional efforts to hold the Indonesian military accountable have repeatedly been undermined by those who, I’d argue, should have been supporting them. In the mid 1990s the Clinton administration provided high levels of assistance to the Indonesian military that at very least violated the spirit of the Congressional restrictions. The Bush administration criticised the restrictions publicly and repeatedly, which may have signalled to the Indonesian military that the US was not completely serious about human rights reform. As your post pointed out, Obama also undermined Congressional efforts in 2010. In addition to this, throughout these past two decades Australia provided military assistance to Indonesia with fewer restrictions than the US (excluding the period immediately after the East Timor referendum, when both the US and Australia cut off military aid).

These inconsistencies would have greatly weakened the pressure that the Leahy amendment and other restrictions were intended to apply, and may well be more important than the specific flaws in the Leahy amendment described by Comer.

Current Kopassus commander, Major General Lodewijk Paulus, has stated that he hopes America’s position on assistance to the Indonesian military becomes closer to Australia’s; I hope it’s the other way round.

—

http://securityscholar.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/australias-options-on-kopassus-and-human-rights/

Australia’s options on Kopassus and human rights

11/01/2011
by Natalie Sambhi

Last week, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM) released its preliminary report into the alleged torture of Papuans by the Indonesian military (TNI). Quoted in a Deutsche Welle report on 4 January, the head of the commission, Ifdhal Kasim, confirmed that members of TNI had “grossly violated human rights”. The DW piece finished with Phil Robe’s (deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia Division) call for Australia to put pressure on Indonesia to reform TNI’s Army Special Forces, Kopassus, or risk losing credibility as a country that respects human rights. I was curious to know exactly what HRW meant by “pressure”.

In their open letter of 26 October 2010, HRW recommended two lines of action for the Australian Prime Minister: first urge the Indonesian government to undertake further investigations and disciplinary action into allegations of abuse by the military, to adopt legislation to provide civilian criminal court jurisdiction over military personnel responsible for offenses against civilians, and to investigate allegations against Detachment 88; and second tighten up and make public Australia’s vetting procedures for Indonesian security forces.

While there have been perennial calls (ostensibly by HRW but also within the Australian press, most recently here) for Australia to get involved, here I examine how much credence HRW’s recommendations deserve.

The first set of recommended actions­even if they are in keeping with Australia’s foreign policy leanings­is tantamount, from Indonesia’s perspective, to meddling in another country’s affairs; President SBY warned Prime Minister Gillard ahead of her November visit to Jakarta that Australia’s interference in torture cases was not welcome. Later, during her trip, Prime Minister Gillard accepted President SBY’s assurance that a “full and transparent investigation” would take place. In light of the resultant investigations carried out by Komnas HAM, it is highly unlikely that any other tangible and productive outcome would have transpired from more vocal chiding on behalf of Australia.

The second set of HRW recommendations­that is, for Australia to adjust its own rather than Indonesia’s approach to human rights concerns­is far more appropriate. As I have proposed elsewhere, the adoption of a legal standard against which Australia can measure human rights reform within foreign militaries is, albeit complex and ambitious, a pragmatic way of reconciling our foreign policy with our defence engagement. A useful departure point could be the Leahy Amendment to the Foreign Assistance legislation (see s502B and subsequent appropriationslegislation). In short, Leahy prohibits US security assistance to military units where there is credible evidence that they have committed “gross violations of human rights”.

That said, Leahy is no silver bullet, and it is worth examining some of the challenges involved in adopting a similar legalistic approach. Many of the finer points of these challenges are elaborated further in Charles K. Comer’s critique, but here, I will draw out a few.

First, the wording of any test for human rights standards and vetting must be carefully constructed. In the case of Leahy, funding is barred for units rather than individuals where credible evidence demonstrates a gross violation of human rights. In the case of the US and Indonesia, two TNI officers with exemplary records who were denied US funding despite having been born after the violations alleged to have been carried out by their unit occurred (Comer: 63-64). This situation is somewhat mitigated by Australian vetting procedures which seek to minimise contact with individuals who have backgrounds of concern, however there remains a lack of accountability to which standards these backgrounds are compared. The framework provided by Leahy could complement current vetting procedures.

Second, if adopted, Leahy must be applied consistently to all foreign military partners. As Comer notes, “[i]n the case of Indonesia, units, either cohort or composite, receiving training must undergo full vetting to include the history of the unit itself. By comparison, unit vetting in the Philippines consists of vetting only the unit commander or most senior individual in the case of a composite unit.”

Third, Wikileaks cables released in December 2010 revealed that a ban on training (enacted by Leahy) between the US military and Kopassus was lifted due to pressure by Indonesian President SBY (Indonesia denies pressure was applied to lift the ban). Unsurprisingly, this brings to light the ways in which legal protection of human rights standards can be trumped by realpolitik concerns. In the words of Australian Defence Force Academy associate professor Clinton Fernandes, ”[t]he decision to renew links shows contempt not only to the victims of gross human rights violations but to members of the US Congress.” Nonetheless, that Leahy continues to serve as a yardstick of US expectations on human rights remains important, when applied and upheld correctly.

By no means should Australia be merely reactive to the calls by organisations like HRW, however, it is worth continuing to debate options proposed and perhaps draw closer to reconciling a desire to uphold human rights and an imperative to engage with Indonesia’s military.

etan

0

HRW: Indonesia: Explain Transfer of Imprisoned Activists

Human Rights Watch logo
Image via Wikipedia

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/12/10/indonesia-explain-transfer-imprisoned-activists

Release All Political Prisoners
December 10, 2010

“Prisoners have rights too, and ignoring those rights is no way to celebrate Human Rights Day. The authorities should explain why Filep Karma and Buchtar Tabuni have been thrown in a police lock-up and denied access to lawyers.”

Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch

 

(New York) – The Indonesian authorities should immediately allow two Papuan political prisoners and three others to fairly contest their transfer from prison to a police headquarters and permit them access to their lawyers, Human Rights Watch said today. Filep Karma, 51, and Buchtar Tabuni, 31, have been held at the Jayapura police station in West Papua since being brought there a day after a riot at Abepura prison on December 3, 2010.

On international Human Rights Day, Human Rights Watch also reiterated its call for the Indonesian government to free immediately the more than 130 Papuan and Moluccan activists imprisoned for peacefully voicing political views, and to reform laws and policies to protect freedom of expression.

“Prisoners have rights too, and ignoring those rights is no way to celebrate Human Rights Day,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should explain why Filep Karma and Buchtar Tabuni have been thrown in a police lock-up and denied access to lawyers.”

The Jayapura police chief, Commissionaire Imam Setiawan, told the media that the police had “secured” Karma and Tabuni at the Jayapura police station for provoking a riot that occurred at Abepura prison following an attempted prison break on December 3 in which a prisoner was shot and killed. Karma and Tabuni informed Federika Korain of the United Papuan People’s Democracy Forum (FORDEM) that they were transferred to the police station without being told that they had committed an offense.

Under the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, “[N]o prisoner shall be punished unless he has been informed of the offense alleged against him and given a proper opportunity of presenting his defense.”

Since being taken to the police station, Karma and Tabuni have requested access to their legal counsel but have been refused. On December 8, Karma’s lawyer, Harry Masturbongs, came to the station but was not allowed to meet with his client. The police have also refused to let Karma’s family visit him.

According to the UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, an “imprisoned person shall be entitled to communicate and consult with his legal counsel.” The rights of an “imprisoned person to be visited by and to consult and communicate, without delay or censorship and in full confidentiality, with his legal counsel may not be suspended or restricted save in exceptional circumstances, to be specified by law or lawful regulations, when it is considered indispensable by a judicial or other authority in order to maintain security and good order.”

On December 9, Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono opened the third Bali Democracy Forum, which is aimed at promoting regional international cooperation to foster democracy and political development among countries in Asia. President Yudhoyono said in his opening speech, “There are a lot of variants of democracy but there must be universal values and spirits within the democracy itself.” Human Rights Watch called on the Indonesian government to respect the basic right to free expression, as laid out in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia ratified in 2006.

“Holding political prisoners is embarrassing and totally out-of-step with the image of a modern democratic state that Indonesia is trying to project,” Pearson said. “President Yudhoyono should show his commitment to basic rights by freeing people imprisoned for the peaceful expression of their political views, including Filep Karma and Buchtar Tabuni.”

Background

Filep Karma, age 51, has been in Abepura prison for six years. In May 2005, the Abepura district court found him guilty of treason for organizing a Papuan independence rally on December 1, 2004, and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

Buchtar Tabuni, age 31, is a leader of the West Papua National Committee, a Papuan independence organization that has grown more radical since his imprisonment. He was arrested in Jayapura on December 3, 2008, for organizing protests against the shooting of his relative, Opinus Tabuni. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment under article 160 of the Criminal Code for “inciting hatred” against the Indonesian government.

Human Rights Watch has documented beatings in Abepura prison in 2008 and 2009 that led to investigations into prison conditions by the National Human Rights Commission and the removal of the previous prison warden.

Human Rights Watch’s June 2010 report, Prosecuting Political Aspiration, describes the mistreatment of individuals serving prison sentences for peaceful acts of free expression in Papua and the Moluccas Islands, including Filep Karma and Buchtar Tabuni.

2

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑