(via Tapol) The following is a summary of two lengthy reports in Bintang Papua on 7 and 8 November about the visit earlier this month of the US ambassador Scot Marciel, to West Papua:
——-
DPRP Meetings
During discussions with members of the Papuan Provincial Legislative Assembly (DPRP), the ambassador expressed strong support for the special autonomy law enacted eleven years ago and said that the US government recognises West Papua as a part of the Republic of Indonesia.He said that his main interest was in the development programme in West Papua and to discuss possible collaboration in this process.
The deputy head of the DPRP, Yunus Wonda, said the ambassador was keen to know what the priorities were in development and said the ambassador was particularly interested in education and health.
He also asked about the difficulties surrounding the election of the governor which resulted in the election being delayed for two years. Yunus explained that the problems had emerged because of a dispute in the MK (This presumably refers to the Constitutional Court – Tapol).
With regard to education, the ambassador said that the US is willing to help by providing study opportunities to young Papuans in the US.
Yunus asked the ambassador how many indigenous Papuans were now studying in the US, adding that they were keen to know the names of these people, to see whether they were indeed indigenous Papuans.
The DPRP also called on the US to support the idea of dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. He said that they would not use this dialogue to press for independence for Papua but were only interested in advancing the implementation of the special autonomy law.
——————
Talks with military personnel
Marciel said that the US was very impressed by the developments that had already been achieved and also with the reforms that had been made with regard to the TNI (the Indonesian army). These remarks were made during a meeting between the ambassador and senior officers of the provincial military command. On this occasion the ambassador met the chief of staff of the military command along with seven other senior officers.
In a press release issued by the US team, the ambassador referred to Freeport and asked for clarifications about the company and wanted to know whether there could be more collaboration (with the company) in education, culture and security.
The chief of staff explained that according to Law 34/2004, the military were now implementing ‘soft power’ in their territorial operations in Papua, and were keen to assist in speeding up development and human resources so as to ensure that West Papua would not continue to lag behind other parts of Indonesia.
In response to the ambassador’s question as to why the duties of the military command in West Papua were so much greater here than elsewhere and required a very different approach, the chief of staff said that the military were acting in accordance with their noble duties as ‘Noble Protectors of the People’ (Ksatria Pelindung Rakyat).
————————–
MRP Meeting
During a meeting with the first deputy chairman of the Majelis Rakyat Papua (Papuan People’s Council) Hofni Simbiak, the ambassador said he wanted to know more about the election of the governor and to know more about governmental affairs in the Province of Papua. Hofni said that even a very large tree could be felled at any time. Because of this, he said that he hoped that there would be more diplomatic visits to Papua so as to give guidance on leadership on the province.
He said that the ambassador’s visit was a good opportunity to discuss the gubernatorial problem, as well as the whole process of government. in the province. He said that they were very interested in this matter so as to ensure the the common people would not be victims of this situation.
He explained that because of the continued absence of an elected governor, no budget had been produced and there was no one who could take responsibility (for finances). This was having serious consequences for the people. (Simbiak) said that they had urged the KPU (Electoral Commission) to discuss this matter with the provincial government and to take firm action on the matter. He said it was extremely important for a governor to be elected because without this, the services provided by the governor were not available and this was leading to big problems for the people.
The ambassador said that the American people were aware of the difficulties regarding the governor and said: ‘We are having an election of our president in the US and face the same situation as you here in Papua because we are keen to provide help for the government here in the fields of education, health and forestry.’
—————————-
Meeting with Tito Karnavian
In a meeting with Inspector-General of the Police Force, Tito Karnavian, the ambassador expressed support for the developments already achieved by the police.
The chief of police said that when they were confronted with acts of violence, they always act in accordance with the law and in a professional manner, keeping the use of violence to a minimum. He also spoke about their activities to combat corruption so as to ensure that the development budget could serve the interests of the people.
He said that the ambassador had stressed the importance of transparency and in case of acts of abuse by the police, everything should be made public. When he asked in what way the US could help, the chief of staff said that they could be given advice on how best to deal with demonstrations. The second point he made was that for purposes of investigation, the difficulty is that there is no forensic laboratory in Papua. His third point was about the need for working together especially with Bhayangkari (the organisation of wives of the military), in particular with regard to partnerships with the people.
In response, the ambassador expressed great enthusiasm and said he hoped that joint programmes would be conducted in the next four or five years.
Marciel also expressed support for the police pursuing a lenient approach and the need to avoid projecting an image of the police as being involved only in arresting and detaining people but should prioritise activities that bring them close to the people.
[COMMENT: There is no mention at all of the ambassador having met leaders of Papuan organisations such as DAP, the Council of Indigenous People, KontraS Papua, ELSHAM-Papua or other people’s organisations.]
Credible Reports have again emerged detailing a rampage by troops from the notorious Indonesian Army (TNI) Battalion 756, who have reportedly run amok burning houses and beating up Papuan civilians, during a recent security sweep against Papuan civil society activists.
At 2pm local time on November 4, a joint force of 756 BTn troops, together with Brimob paramilitary police units and troops described as “non-organic special forces” – most likely troops from the Australian-supported Detachment 88 counter-terror unit – conducted a sweep of the houses behind the New Jibama market in Wamena town. The troops laid siege to a group of houses and started shooting at the houses and directly at residents, according to witnesses interviewed by local human rights sources.
One person was reportedly seriously injured by gunshot wounds sustained during the attack, and many more people received major burn injuries after being caught in three houses that were torched by the joint force. Exact casualty figures have been unable to be ascertained and the gunshot victim has yet to be identified, however family members confirmed that several people had been treated at the Wamena hospital for their injuries.
This slideshow requires JavaScript.
Family members of those targeted, spoken to by stringers for West Papua Media, have fled Wamena after their houses were set on fire by the joint force. According to local sources, they fled to the forest outside Wamena, and are too scared to return for fear of being shot by Indonesian security force. Those fleeing are being forced to survive on the resources in the forest, as the security presence makes in difficult to return home, according to our sources.
Local human rights activists have also claimed that people in Wamena are confused over the reason behind the attack and the arson, and have questioned who has commanded the attack. “What forces are behind this? This case is not obvious, but the combined forces commit arson and loot residents’ property in the home of all three victims,” said the activist.
The behaviour of security forces against Papuans “is very exaggerated beyond procedures that should be enforced under applicable human rights law in Indonesia and Internationally,” he continued.
On june 7, members of Battalion 756 went on another rampage of arson, looting, shootings and beatings after one of their members was killed after an accident that seriously injured a young boy. In recent months, Detachment 88 troops have also led an intensifying and brutal crackdown on activists from the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), after claims of their involvement in a bombing campaign.
Many credible observers have cast doubt on the motivations of the security forces in this crackdown, accusing them of engineering a situation to criminalise legitimate peaceful free expression.
October 23, 2012
I’m going to describe the beating I (Oktovianus Pogau, Journalist) http://www.suarapapua.com experienced by the Manokwari district police in front of Papua State University campus in Manokwari, West Papua, on the afternoon of Tuesday 23rd October.
At about 10.00 am Eastern Indonesian Time I arrived at the place of the incident, in front of the Papua State University campus. I saw around 300 armed officers holding/restraining a crowd of 300 people. The crowd was planning on marching to Lapangan Borarsi, Manokwari. There were three trucks blocking the road, and also 1 TNI (military) truck with dozens of personnel.
There were negotiations between the police and the crowd. Police requested the crowd express their opinion there, on the main road, in front of the campus. The crowd insisted on continuing to Lapangan Borarsi. There was some commotion, then the crowd yielded and didn’t continue to Lapangan Borarsi (except) for a few people who continued there to wait for another crowd of demonstrators to arrive.
At about 10.40 am Eastern Indonesian Time, a police officer neared the crowd and took a photo. The crowd didn’t accept this, and moved nearer to the police and requested that they not take photos so close. Then, several people from the crowd spontaneously threw rocks in the direction of the officers, and from here, the officers responded brutally. Hundreds of people dispersed and the officers loosed thousands of shots in front of the campus Uncen. 11 people were arrested. 2 people suffered from gunshot wounds.
At this time I wasn’t far from where this was happening. I was trying to take footage and photos. A plain-clothed police officer approached me and told me to leave the area in a rude tone. I told him I was a journalist and carried a press card. He demanded I show him my card. I found my wallet so I could show him my card but suddenly a police officer in full uniform turned up. The officer strangled my neck and threatened me, so that I’d leave to the action. I resisted and said I was a journalist, then three more officers in uniform came and barked at me, ‘Where’s your press card . . . where’s your press card.’ I moved to look for it, but one of the police threw punches at my face and lips.
At this time my neck was aching from the strangulation by the officer and my lip was swollen and bleeding. Then several of my journalist friends came and stopped them and said I was a journalist, and only then did they release me.
ASIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION – URGENT APPEALS PROGRAMME
Urgent Appeal Case: AHRC-UAC-185-2012
The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received the information regarding the arbitrary arrest of five Papuan activists in Jayapura, Papua on 12 October 2012. The five activists were arrested on the allegation of involvement in importing or distributing explosive materials. The police did not have any evidence to arrest and detain them and they were later released. The police, however, copied several documents belonging to the activists related to their political movement.
CASE NARRATIVE:
According to the information we obtained from Yasons Sambom himself, he and his friends Denny Hisage, Anike Kogoya, Feliks Bahabol and Linus Bahabol were on their way to Nabire by the Lapobar ship when the police arrested them at around 9.20pm. They were initially put under the custody of the Sea Harbour Security Execution Unit (KP3 Laut) Jayapura before being moved to the Papua Regional Police Station at around 11-12pm for interrogation. The interrogation of some of the activists started at 1am on the next day and lasted until 4am whereas the remainder were questioned from 2.30am until 6am. It is not until 11 on 13 October 2012 that the five activists were released. None of the activists were given the opportunity to contact any legal counsel to accompany them during the questioning
The five activists were arrested for allegedly violating Article 187bis of the Penal Code concerning their alleged involvement in importing explosive materials to Indonesia territory. Several weeks before the arrest, two bombs were found at the secretariat of the West Papuan National Committee (Komite Nasional Papua Barat, KNPB) in Wamena and the police suspected Yasons along with his friends to be linked to it. The allegation, however, could not be proven and the police later released the activists after their 24 hours of arrest. According to the transcript of the police interview with the arrested persons, the police considered Yasons as the suspect of the bomb case in Wamena, Denny is merely a witness, whereas the status of the rest three is still unclear.
Yasons Sambom and Denny Hisage are well known for their activities in favour of Papuan independence, whereas the three other arrested people are university students. There is an allegation that their arrest was actually more likely to have been caused by their political activities instead of the suspicion that they were involved in the import of explosive materials. On the day of the arrest, the police seized several belongings of the activists which contained confidential and important information regarding their political activities. Those belongings include a laptop, four USB flash disks and one CD containing several documents – none are related to the import of illegal explosive materials which was the crime the activists were alleged to be involved in. Although the police returned all of these items to Denny Hisage and his friends, they managed to copy the documents before releasing the activists.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Prosecution, trial and punishment of activists in Papua are ongoing human rights issues taking place in the region. The use of articles concerning treason or treason-related activities (Article 106, 110 and 160) against the activists is typical that it has been a concern of several states involved in the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) on Indonesia last May. Leaders and members of pro-independence groups or those who are in favour of the independence movement had also been prosecuted with other criminal provisions which in many cases they had not breached. In the past, Yason himself was arrested twice. He was firstly arrested in 2009 due to his involvement in a peaceful protest asking the government to stop the violence and abuses in Papua. Later in May 2011 he was arrested without a clear charge and several documents on his political activities saved on his laptop were also copied by the police.
Victims of fabricated charges might seek compensation to the court once the legal proceedings against them prove they are not guilty. Yet the officers responsible for such abuse are unlikely to be criminally punished due to the absence of a law provision criminalising the fabrication of charges by law enforcement officials. The only specific prohibition on fabrication of charges is found in Article 6 letter (k) of Government Regulation No. 2 Year 2003 concerning the Discipline Rule for Members of Indonesian National Police whose one of articles sets out ‘in exercising their duties, the members of the Indonesian National Police are prohibited to manipulate cases’.
A complain to the Security and Profession Division (Propam), an internal oversight mechanism of the police, may be lodged by the victims yet the sanctions to be imposed will only be disciplinary. The similar government regulation sets out that any police officers who has manipulated a case may be sentenced to a maximum of 21 days of isolation which in some cases may be extended up to a further seven days.
The Criminal Procedure Code gives authority to the police to seize goods as well as to perform document checks. Goods to be seized and documents to be checked, however, have to be related to the crimes allegedly committed by the suspects. Article 39 of the Code sets out five general categories of seize-able goods: those which are products of a crime, used for a crime, used for halting the investigation of a crime, created specifically for a crime, and other goods that are directly related to the crime.
SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please write to the listed authorities below asking them to ensure investigation on the arbitrary arrest, seizure and fabrication of charges of the five Papuan activists to take place.
The AHRC is writing a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right of opinion and expression as well as the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.
To support this appeal, please click here: SAMPLE LETTER:
Dear ___________, INDONESIA: Police arbitrarily arrested five Papuan activists and copied documents related to their political activities Name of victim: Denny Hisage (26 year old), Yasons Sambom (22 year old), Anike Kogoya (24 year old), Feliks Bahabol (23 year old), Linus Bahabol (23 year old) Names of alleged perpetrators: Papua Regional Police officers Date of incident: 12 October 2012 Place of incident: Jayapura, Papua
I am writing to voice my concern over the arbitrary arrest of five Papuan activists in Jayapura harbour on 12 October 2012. I was told that Yasons Sambom, Denny Hisage, Anike Kogoya, Feliks Bahabol and Linus Bahabol were on their way to Nabire by the Lapobar ship when the police arrested them on the allegation of their involvement in the import of explosive materials as prohibited under Article 187bis of the Indonesian Penal Code. The police suspected Yasons and his friends are somehow related to two bombs found at the secretariat of West Papua National Committee (Komite Nasional Papua Barat, KNPB) in Wamena last month. After being put under custody and questioned for 24 hours, Yasons Sambom and his friends were released by the police due to lack of evidence. There is a possibility, however, that the police have not changed Yasons’s status of suspect. The police seized several belongings of the activists which include a unit of laptop, four USB flash disks and one CD containing several documents.
This case has been my particular concern as I allege the politicisation of the criminal proceeding here. Yasons Sambom and Denny Hisage are well known in Papua, for their activities in favour of the independence of the region. As proved by the release of the five activists, the police did not actually have any evidence or basis to arrest them for illegal import of explosive materials. The police suspected them, mainly Yasons and Denny, to be responsible for the bombs found in Wamena due to their political activities. The political nuance in this case can also be concluded from the fact that the police did not seize any belongings related to the alleged crime but, instead, those related to Yasons Sambom and friends’ political activities.
I am concerned with the ongoing prosecution and punishment of individuals in Papua who are in favour of the independence of the region. I wish to emphasise that one’s political view is protected under the freedom of opinion and their activities to express such view is guaranteed by the notion of freedom of expression. Criminal proceeding against individuals for their dissenting opinion with the government is therefore unacceptable and in violation of those rights which are protected both in Indonesian 1945 Constitution as well as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which Indonesia is a state party.
In this opportunity, I would also like to express my concern regarding the absence of law provision criminalising fabrication of charges by law enforcement officials in Indonesia. I am aware that a victim of arbitrary or false arrest, detention, prosecution or trial may initiate legal proceeding to district court to seek compensation. When the false arrest or detention was committed by the police, it is also possible for the victim to lodge a complaint to the internal oversight mechanism within the police, the Security and Profession Division. The punishment to be given to the police officers if they were convicted, however, is only those with disciplinary and not criminally nature. I therefore call you to make framing or fabrication of charges a crime falling under the jurisdiction of civilian courts.
In addition to the halt of prosecution and persecution towards Papuan activists as well as the criminalisation of charges, I request you to provide compensation to Denny Hisage, Yasons Sambom, Anike Kogoya, Feliks Bahabol and Linus Bahabol. Independent investigations towards the allegation of the fabrication of charges should also take place.
I look forward to your swift and positive response in this matter.
Yours sincerely,
—————- PLEASE SEND YOUR LETTERS TO:
1. Mr. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
President of Republic of Indonesia
Jl. Veteran No. 16
Jakarta Pusat
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 345 8595
Fax: +62 21 3483 4759
E-mail: presiden@ri.go.id
2. Ms. Harkristuti Harkrisnowo
General Director of Human Rights
Ministry of Law and Human Rights
Jl. HR Rasuna Said Kav. 6-7
Kuningan, Jakarta 12940
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 525 3006, 525 3889
Fax: +62 21 525 3095
3. Marzuki Alie
Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives
Gedung Nusantara III DPR RI
Jl. Jend. Gatot Subroto
Jakarta 10270
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 575 5048, 575 6041, 575 6059
Fax: +62 21 575 6379
E-mail: set_tu_ketua@dpr.go.id, baleg@dpr.go.id
4. Gen. Timur Pradopo
Chief of the Indonesian National Police
Jl. Trunojoyo No. 3
Kebayoran Baru, Jakarta Selatan 12110
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 384 8537, 726 0306
Fax: +62 21 7220 669
E-mail: info@polri.go.id
5. Insp. General Pol. Tito Karnavian
Chief of the Papua Regional Police
Jl. Dr. Samratulangi No. 8 Jayapura
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 967 531 014, 533 396
Fax: +62 967 533 763
6. Mr. Ifdhal Kasim
Chairman of the National Human Rights Commission
Jl. Latuharhary No. 4-B
Jakarta 10310
INDONESIA
Tel: +62 21 392 5227
Fax: +62 21 392 5227
E-mail: info@komnasham.go.id
Thank you.
Urgent Appeals Programme
Asian Human Rights Commission (ua@ahrc.asia)
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee – 16/10/2012 – Estimates – ATTORNEY-GENERAL PORTFOLIO – Australian Federal Police
Senator DI NATALE: I have some questions relating to the AFP’s role in the training of counterterrorism operations in Indonesia. On 28 August this year, the ABC’s 7.30 program aired some evidence about the counterterrorism unit Detachment 88, which as I think we discussed in the last estimates hearing, receives training and support from the AFP. The program aired evidence that Detachment 88 has been involved in torture and extrajudicial killings in West Papua. We know that these allegations of torture and ill treatment have also been verified by groups like Human Rights Watch. During the program there was a call from the foreign minister, Bob Carr, in relation to the recent shooting of Papuan independence leader Mako Tabuni for an inquiry. He called for an inquiry. I note the AFP’s response was that it does not investigate received briefings on or ask what I think are fairly basic questions from the Indonesian authorities about human rights abuse allegations. Given that background, I want to ask a few more questions about the training and support provided to detachment 88. I understand that there are hundreds of thousands of security forces in Indonesia and that AFP does not train all of them, but is it correct to say there have been around 12,000 trained in total since the Bali bombings, through the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation? Would that be about right?
Mr Negus : Senator, those figures are right, but there have been 12 000 officers from, I think, around 55 or 56 countries who have been trained at that facility that make up that 12,000—including Australian federal police. I think Deputy Commissioner Drennan might have the numbers here for us about Detachment 88. The media reporting you talked about, back in August: I put out what we call a ‘blue-line response’ the following day, to correct some of the public speculation in regard to the AFP’s support of Detachment 88. I will let Deputy Commissioner Drennan elaborate on this, but the first two points I just want to make are that the AFP does not provide public order, tactical training, or related equipment to Detachment 88 and the AFP does not, and has not, provided any support to the Indonesian National Police, or Detachment 88, in any of their operational activities in West Papua. Again, on our website there is a very clear statement of what our responsibilities are and what we do.
We have been working with Detachment 88, in one sense, since 2005. There has been a range of things they have done very positively in Indonesia, apartment from the allegations of abuse that you mention. They have been responsible for the arrest of over 770 people for suspected terrorism offences. Around 600 of those have been convicted in the Indonesian courts. And I have got to say, from being in Bali last weekend for the Bali memorial, the work of Detachment 88—and it is a very large organisation—the work of parts of Detachment 88 I have no doubt have saved Australian lives in the context of the work they have done in breaking up JI across the Indonesia archipelago. So, in that regard there is a range of very much positive activities that should be looked at, as well as the issues that you raise of the allegations of abuse and particularly around the West Papua issue. So, the AFP is focused very much on the positives, and we do not get involved in any of the areas that have been reported in the media.
I have got to say, though, the media reporting has been quite loose with some of the factual data in regards to allegations against Detachment 88. I know there have been a range of issues attributed to other forces in Indonesia which Detachment 88 has certainly copped the blame for. I will let Deputy Commissioner Drennan talk about this, because I specifically tasked him in the last month or so to sit down with people who have worked in Indonesia, sit down and look at all of our programs with Detachment 88 to make sure that we were more than comfortable, given the basis of your questioning at the last estimates hearing, to reflect on that and to talk to the people on the ground, to be very, very clear about the role played by the AFP and the sort of support that is given to Detachment 88 in that context. So, Deputy Commissioner.
Mr Drenna n : Thanks, Commissioner. Senator, if I could just go back to the beginning there, where you raised the allegations of Det. 88’s involvement in the death of Mako Tabuni—
Senator DI NATALE: I will correct you on that: the 7.30 program raised the allegation, I was just reporting that.
Mr Drennan : Okay, thank you. The International Crisis Group have actually reported on this incident and they have actually reviewed the matter and their finding was that Det. 88 members were not involved in any way in the operation resulting in Tabuni’s death. The INP have affirmed that that is the position. So, again, as the commissioner said, we just need to be a little bit cautious on what the media say, in some circumstances. The International Crisis Group has reviewed that matter, and I think the International Crisis Group’s reputation speaks for itself in its level of scrutiny and independence. Also, if we could just go to the number of officers who have been trained at the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation; from the Indonesian National Police there have been 6,932 students. There have been 702 students from Detachment 88, 11 students—
Senator DI NATALE: Sorry, what was that number?
Mr Drennan : 702. Eleven of those members of Det. 88 have been from the Papua province. And there is one member from Det. 88 who is stationed in Papua province, who has attended a course at JCLEC, which has been supported by the AFP, or funded by the AFP, and that was a counter-terrorism investigations program.
The types of courses that other members from Det. 88 from West Papua have undertaken at JCLEC, are CT investigations management, counter-terrorism financial investigation workshop, counter-terrorism investigation management, informer handling and interviewing techniques, investigation management, CT in analysing the internet, interviewing in-prison debriefing course, and CT investigations management course. Now, those courses are held at JCLEC but are provided by a range of donor countries, primarily from Europe and the UK. You will see from those that there are no courses there that are tactically orientated, that is none which deal with public order or any tactical operations the police may be involved in.
As regards to the other types of courses Detachment 88 officers may have attended at JCLEC, they are of a similar nature and I will run through those as it may help you: crime investigations, management of transnational crime, criminal intelligence, financial investigations, proceeds of crime, communications, management, security risk management, response to CBRN, which is chemical, biological radiological and nuclear events, internet offences, child protection and post bomb blast management. Again you will see from that list of courses that there are none there which are tactical in their nature whatsoever. The other thing I would mention there is that the officers who attend from Detachment 88 is a decision by the Indonesian National Police. JCLEC provide the courses, the request goes to the Indonesian National Police to provide officers and they select officers from across the entire INP to attend those different programs.
Senator DI NATALE: Thank you for that comprehensive background there. It is nice to have someone who has answered a lot of the questions before I have had the opportunity to ask them, so I appreciate that.
Mr Drennan : Here to assist you, Senator.
Senator DI NATALE: I have a few questions about background checks. What is actually done in the way of background checks? I take your point that there may be some controversy around the incident with Mako Tabuni but I think it is reasonably well-established that there have been members of Detachment 88 who have been involved in other non-lawful activities. What work is done in the way of background checks prior to the training? I understand that they are selected by the Indonesian forces but is there any work done in the way of background checks to establish that the people we are training have got a track record that we are pleased to support?
Mr Drennan : It is probably best to answer it this way. Firstly, the nature of the courses, as I articulated, is very much focused on investigations, investigations management, forensics and child protection type things. The nature of the allegations which have been raised in the media—and, as I said, I treat them with some caution—
Senator DI NATALE: It is not just the media; Human Rights Watch have also indicated concerns.
Mr Drennan : Again, I treat those with some caution. They are operations of a tactical nature, so when police officers have been involved in a tactical sense of resolution of matters, of arrests. So the actual type of people who have been selected to go on the courses which are conducted at JCLEC which we are supporting are of a different nature to the type of activities that the police would be involved in. As far as are there checks done in regard to the history of each individual officer, the INP select those officers. We do not have any involvement in that. But the INP are also very aware of our position in that we provide these courses for investigations and the nature of the things I described earlier and we rely upon them selecting suitable officers to attend those training programs. Within the training programs themselves, though, there is a human rights element which is built in. Whether that is through the scenario base of the training or whether it is a specific element of the training, it is incorporated in each of those training programs.
Commissioner Negus : I add that that human rights training is to Australian standards. We have the commandant of JCLEC, which is a joint facility between the INP and the AFP, and we insist on the training in those things being done to international standards, including what we here in Australia commit to as far as international human rights and the protection of human rights are concerned. So this is an opportunity to have people from multiple countries—as I said, over 50 countries have trained there—come together and talk about some of the implications of potential human rights abuses, take these as case studies and discuss these in the classroom before they leave and go back to their various areas.
Senator DI NATALE: If you became aware of a specific allegation of human rights abuse, what would the process then be for gathering more information about the specific allegations?
Mr Drennan : Are you asking what process we would have?
Senator DI NATALE: What is the process in general obviously within JCLEC, or whether the AFP in particular would follow those issues up.
Mr Drennan : We would certainly report those matters to the Indonesian National Police, who would have the responsibility of dealing with them. And if I could just add: the Indonesian National Police are actually overseen by the Indonesian National Human Rights Commission, the National Police Commission and, as you mentioned before, also numerous government organisations and human rights groups closely monitor activities.
In 2009 the Chief of the Indonesian National Police introduced a regulation specifically addressing the implementation of human rights principles and standards in the discharge of the duties for the Indonesian National Police. In a more general sense, the INP is responsible for prosecuting matters according to the rule of law and which therefore brings those matters under the scrutiny of the courts.
We rely upon those tiers of governments and oversight to ensure that the INP discharge their obligations in relation to a range of international human rights conventions to which they are signatories. Again, there are nine core international human rights treaties under the United Nations. Indonesia has signed all nine of those and ratified eight, with one more to come.
Senator DI NATALE: So how often are specific allegations brought before the AFP?
Mr Drennan : I am not aware that any have been brought specifically to the AFP.
Senator DI NATALE: So, in your view, does that indicate that the human rights issue in terms of some of the people who are being trained is a non-issue?
Mr Drennan : No, what I am saying is that none have been brought before us. The type of training that we provide and the officers who are participating in training are not ones we would expect to be involved in activities of the nature where allegations of human rights abuse have been raised.
Mr Negus : One of the points I made in the opening comments, before I passed to Deputy Commissioner Drennan, was that Detachment 88 have a very wide role in Indonesia. They are really the investigative capability for the Indonesian National Police to investigate and prosecute terrorist offences. So think about that in the context of across the whole of the archipelago. Again, they have arrested 775 people with terrorism offences since the Bali bombings took place in 2002, with over 600 of those being prosecuted and convicted in the courts in Indonesia. So we are talking about a very large group of people here in which we have a very small slice—I think 78 of them from Detachment 88 have done those training programs with us. So we are open to a very small component of what is a very large group within an even larger organisation of the Indonesian National Police.
Senator DI NATALE: I appreciate that. Small or large, it is important to establish whether—
Mr Negus : I think publicly, though, there is a perception that Detachment 88 is a small group of people who move around in one group and that is not the case, as we have—
Senator DI NATALE: I am aware of that. I think we share a view that they have done some good work in preventing terrorism in Indonesia. The concern I have is that some of the activities within segments of Detachment 88 have moved from a counter-terrorism operation to a counter-separatism operation within Papua and that may apply only to a small number of that unit. But it is still significant, particularly for the people of West Papua. So understand the basis for my questions—
Mr Negus : We are very careful and, hopefully, you are seeing that we are very careful to limit our support to those actions that are instrumental in ridding Indonesia and the region of terrorist activity and protecting Australian lives in the process.
Senator DI NATALE: Do you share a concern that some of the allegations that may be made end up being investigated by the same agencies that are essentially responsible for committing the abuses? Is that of concern to you?
Mr Negus : We do not have visibility on that. People make the same allegations against police forces, which have internal investigation units. So it is impossible for me to say what level of scrutiny should be applied to those things in a foreign country.
Mr Drennan : I did articulate again a short time ago that there are a range of oversight bodies which sit across the top of the Indonesian National Police.
Senator DI NATALE: Sure. They do not do the investigating, do they?
Mr Drennan : They certainly provide scrutiny in relation to it. Similarly here, the Ombudsman or any range of committees here in Australia have a monitoring role of what the AFP does. Certainly, if they are not happy with what we are doing, then we are held to account.
If I could just go back to the other issue you raise with regard to counter-terrorism work morphing into counter-separatist work: the INP are very clear on the fact that we support them in their counter-terrorism activities.
They do draw a very distinct difference between counter-terrorism and counter-separatism and they are fully aware that we do not and would not be involved in any counter-separatism work. On that note, we have not been involved in any activities in West Papua at all.
Senator DI NATALE: You have not been directly involved but you have trained members of Detachment 88 and we do not know what numbers are involved in West Papua and what activities they have been involved in in West Papua.
Mr Drennan : To be clear, we have trained one person from Detachment 88 who is in West Papua on a CT investigations course.
Senator DI NATALE: Of the other members, again to be clear, the total number was 702 members of Detachment 88; is that correct?
Mr Drennan : That is correct.
Senator DI NATALE: I thought you had said 11—
Mr Drennan : Eleven have undertaken training programs through JCLEC from Detachment 88 in West Papua and one of those members had attended a course that was funded by the AFP. The other 10 had attended courses that had been funded by other donor countries. Again those courses were of a similar nature.
Senator DI NATALE: In terms of the threshold test for limiting an individual’s involvement in training, at what point do we say that there is evidence against them and that we should withhold any training activities for an individual should that be brought to your attention?
Commissioner Negus : We really rely on the Indonesian National Police to select the appropriate people to come on those programs. You have to understand that we are talking about relatively small numbers of people who come and do the training. These are highly competitive programs. These are programs in which only the best people would be selected to come and who have a significant leadership future within that organisation. The level of scrutiny that is placed by the INP would be significant in that regard. In an organisation of over 400,000 police in the Indonesian National Police we are talking about fewer than a hundred who have been trained in that regard from Detachment 88. We really do rely on the Indonesian National Police. They know very well our stance on this. We have been very clear about that, in what support we can and cannot provide. I brought with us today a chart which we could table for you which lists the expenditure we have in each of those areas. It is around three hundred and something thousand dollars in direct support to them over the last few years. That is not a lot of money in the context of broader aid, but we would be more than happy to table that for the committee so you can see exactly where your money has been going and how that has actually worked.
Senator DI NATALE: Thank you, I would appreciate that. I suppose you have really come to the point that I am trying to make. Given that it is such a competitive program, it has to carry with it some degree of legitimacy. Being trained gives some measure of credibility and international legitimacy to those people who have trained, and what I am trying to establish is that we are ensuring that that legitimacy is deserved and is earned. You are telling me that the screening process is essentially done by the Indonesian National Police and that the AFP have no real role in the vetting of individual people who are going through the training program. Is that a fair analysis?
Commissioner Negus : That is right. To be realistic about this, we are talking about training delivered in Indonesia. Yes, we have supported it financially and we support some of those programs financially, but we do have to rely on and trust our partners to pick the right people to come on to our programs. They know our stance on this, they read the newspapers like everyone else does, they realise that in Australia this is a very topical issue and they are certainly aware of 7.30 and some of the other media that has been raised about this, because we have spoken with them about it personally. They are very clear on our expectations and very clear on our obligations and requirements for them to be selecting the right people to come on these programs.
The reason I had the Deputy Commissioner sit down with people who have been in Indonesia for a couple of years, worked with Detachment 88, worked on these programs, is to satisfy myself, given the media reporting, that we are doing everything that is reasonable and appropriate to ensure that we are only supporting activities that would be acceptable to the Australian community. I have done that, and I am satisfied, given what has been told to me and given what we have told to you today, that we are taking significant precautions to make sure that the Australian community is not tantamount to funding anything which would be unacceptable in this country. I go back to 775 arrests for counter-terrorism matters, 600 people prosecuted and convicted in Indonesian courts for terrorism related offences, which, as I said, have saved Australian lives. There are over 900,000 people who go to Bali each year and after being there last week, seeing the memorial and the surviving victims of the Bali bombings, I think that some of the work that has been done in Indonesia by the Indonesian National Police needs to be recognised.
Yes, we need to be very careful about where the funding is going, but I think that we also need to recognise the terrific work that has been done across the board in protecting Indonesians and Australians from future attack.
Sena tor DI NATALE: I recognise that and, as I said previously, I understand the important work that has been done in counterterrorism. But I have also seen the number of people who have died in West Papua, the people who during the recent national congress were arrested, a number of whom were killed and a number of whom were imprisoned. There were very clear reports that the Indonesian forces and members of Detachment 88 were involved in that, and it is for that reason that I am asking you these questions. I appreciate what you are saying about the role that they have played in terms of terrorism and I share the view that they have done some very important work. But I do not think you can use that and ignore what is happening in West Papua at the moment and the fact that there are very credible reports—not just in the media but by a number of human rights monitors with very credible allegations: interviews with victims, eyewitnesses of incidents and so on—which have implicated members of the Indonesian police force in some of those unlawful activities. I think it is worthy of ensuring that the work that we are doing through our training activities is not contributing to that, and it is for that reason I ask those questions.
Mr Negus : I understand that. All I am saying is that I hope we have been able to give the committee some confidence that the appropriate level of scrutiny is being applied by the senior executive of the AFP, including personally by me, to ensure that that is not the case.
Senator DI NATALE : Okay, thank you. I have one final question. If a specific allegation against an individual were made, would the AFP have any role in following that up, or are you saying that you would leave it entirely up to the Indonesian National Police?
Mr Negus : The issue of jurisdiction becomes central to all of this, and we would not have any jurisdiction to investigate that matter. We would report it to the appropriate authorities in Indonesia. We may well report it to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade if it related to activities of a certain type, but the jurisdiction is within Indonesia to settle its own affairs, and we would just ensure that that information was passed through.
Senator DI NATALE: But we are funding the training activities that are going on, so my question relates specifically to individuals who may have benefitted from that training. Would that cause some concern to reconsider?
Mr Negus : It is a hypothetical question, but I can tell you that if there were ever any taint of anyone we had trained being involved in inappropriate activity, we would certainly have to review the level of support that we would provide.
Senator DI NATALE: Okay.
Mr Negus : And that is clearly evident to the Indonesians as we speak.
Senator DI NAT ALE: Thank you for that assurance and thanks for your time today.