Tag: Kopassus

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

Indonesian Civil Society: Open letter to SBY Raising Concern and Offering Solution:: One-Year Human Rights Promotion in Papua 2010

OPEN LETTER

Raising Concern and Offer Solution::

One-Year Human Rights Promotion in Papua 2010

To the attention of

President Republic of Indonesia,

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

In Jakarta

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing this letter to you to raise our concern over human rights conditions in Papua. We are confirmed that lacking of protection and recognition of Papuans’ rights have led to abusive and violent practice against Papuans. This pratice has persistently cause death to Papuans and left trauma for them and their family. This practice clearly does not reflect the spirit of this country’s constitution to protect whole citizens.

We have recorded that there have been some big issues this year that attract public attention. The issues such as footage violent action against civilians by military in Tinggi Nambut Papua,[1] violence against civilians in Bolakme,[2] ethnic conflict between Papuan highlanders and Yoka people,[3] shooting civilians in Nafri[4], shooting against prisoners in Tanah Hitam,[5] civilians shot dead in Boroway,[6] arrest and detention of Filep Karma and  Buchtar Tabuni[7] and the rally of returning special autonomy. Other cases relating to social, economy and culture which potentially bring negative impact on Papuans and destroy Papuan values such as MIFEE in Merauke,[8] Dagewo case in Paniai[9],  the transfer of local land in Lereh for palm oil plantation, Freeport case,[10] and many illegal logging cases.

Bsaed on our observation and data collected, the problems mentioned above happen because of the following reasons:

First, government still stigmatisize any Papua groups and individual as separatist as they do resistance against government. Government uses ‘stigmatization of separatist” as powerful  strategy to silence Papuans demand and freedom of expression and weaken the critical thinking from Papuans who often criticise the govermnent policy. This strategy is partially successful as it silences resistant movement but in the other side it gives more energy and spirit for more resistance. Also, this unpopular strategy has planted the seeds of hostility and mistrust among Papuans against Indonesia.

Second, Jakarta still plays dominant role in the issue of any policies and their implementations in Papua. Jakarta, as the central power, is still unable to trust any process of development in Papua although Papua has been given special autonomy to manage themselves. MIFEE case, violence against civilians in Bolakme, Tingginambut-Puncak Jaya and Freeport cases are example on how central government still exercise their absolute authority which potentially destroy basic rights of Papua. Central govermnet just interest in investment without considering the basic rights of Papuans and their values

Third, Papua is still considered as conflict area. Therefore, security approach is dominant. Huge number of troops are deployed  every year to Papua to secure the border area and investor’s assets. Ironically, the security approach has caused fear and revive the past trauma. People in the border feel fear when they go to bush and forest to hunting, gardening as they might be arrested as being suspected as members of Papua freedom movement (OPM)/ National Freedom Army (TPN).

Fourth, The massive deployment of troops which is to secure investors’ assest has caused human right violations and fear. The rights of people are neglected and intimidation is done when the locals demand their rights and speak critically.

Fifth, Economic problems are still strongly perceived as the main problems in Papua. Therefore, huge amount of money and investment is needed to build Papua to improve their economy. RESPEK ( strategic plan for rural development) program is one example where the program emphasize infrastructure development rather than human resources development. Moreover, suspection among the locals is rising over the use and management of special autonomy fund used for RESPEK program. Also, no efective supervision has led to corruption

Sixth, the policy issued by govermnet and its implementation actually repair the impact not solve the basic problems which has been persisting so long. It is crucial that any policy has ‘solving-problems’ elements. If not, the problems will never be solved.

Based on the description above, we urge Mr. President to take immediate action by ordering central government and localgovernment to do the following:

First, hold peaceful dialog as an effective means to solve the problems in Papua. The dialog Jakarta-Papua which has been initiated by Papua Peace Network Team needs to be supported. The dialog should involved all elements: government, customary community, religious leaders, academics and civil groups.

Second, stop all stigmatization against Papuans and place them a citizens who have rights to be protected by the state. Constitutions guarantee freedom of expression and this should also be applied to Papuans. Some articles in state criminal law and government regulation No. 77 year 2007 about treason and subversion need to be amended as it limits the freedom of expression

Third, revise or redesign security approach to be human rights-based approach as it will recognise the rights of Papuans and protect Papuans from violent acts. The deployment of troops need to be adjusted to the need of the local area and real threat as to save state budget of defense

Fourth, police should exercise their professionalism in keeping the order and promote human rights. The professionalism is shown by giving protection so people feel secure and peaceful in doing their activities. This is important to bring back trust from the people.

Fifth, push the policy that promote human rights and provide justice to the victims of human rights abuses. Government has to take immediate action to establish human rights court and reconciliation and truth commission in Papua as mandated by special autonomy law

Sixth, central government needs to revise public-service related policy because the existing policy does not provide and touch the basic rights of Papuans. There are three public service issues that needs to taken into consideration: education, health and economy where these three areas are directed to empowernment, affirmative action and protection

Seventh, Policies issued for Papua need to have recognition of human rights elements. This is so because all existing policies basically emphasize on economic and welfare problems.

Eighth, governor, Papua legislative (DPRP) and Papua People’s Assembly (MRP) should build good coordination and reponsive to the problems of human rights abuses in Papua. Lack of initiatives and good will from these institutions show that they actually do not have commitment to promote human rights in Papua and potentially increase mistrust among Papuans.

We write this open letter with the hope that immediate action to be taken to solve the problems in Papua. Thanks

Jayapura, 05 January 2010

Institutions support this open letter

Papua Based Institution

Foker LSM Papua, ALDP, Elsham Papua, SKP-KPC, KPKC Sinode GKI Papua, LBH Jayapura, JAPH-HAM Wamena

Jakarta Based Institution

Imparsial, Kontras Jakarta, HRWG, PRAXIS

CC :

1.  Menkopulhukan RI

2.  Menkokesra RI

3.  Menteri Dalam Negeri RI

4.  Menteri Luar Negeri RI

5.  Menteri Pertahanan RI

6.  Panglima TNI

7.  Kapolri

8.  Jaksa Agung RI

9. Ketua DPR-RI

10. Anggota DPD Provinsi Papua

11.  Gubernur Provinsi Papua

12. Gubernur Provinsi Papua Barat

13. Ketua DPRP

14. Ketua MRP

15. Kedutaan Asing

16. lembaga Internasional

17. Jaringan kerja Papua

[1] This video was initially released by Hongkong Based Human Rights group, AHRC and made public through youtube. In the video, it shows that military tortures civilians suspected as members of Papua free movement group. But in fact, the victim is a reverend. Government then response to the incident immediately by forming fact-finding team. Ministry of politics, law and human rights finally acknowledges in the press release that it is true that military has done such a barbaric act. The perpetrators of the torture were finally on trial and sentenced respectively 5 months and 7 months. This very minimum sentence indicates a failure of states to provide justice to the victim

[2] An ambush against military in Yugam, Bolakme, Jayawijaya district on 1 december 2010. This incident has caused two civilians die

[3]This incident took place on 17 November 2010, 35 houses burned and 3 got injured. The highlanders damage the houses in Yoka as they are angered by a song composed by a Yoka man which insult the highlanders. It is also suspected that third party plays role in fueling the conflict. Local government has facilitated a dialog and they have agreed to cease their hostility. .

[4] Group of unknown men shoot civilians in Nafri, Abepura on 28 November 2010. One was dead and 4 seriously injured. The perpetrators are not identified yet.

[5]Friday on 3 December 2010 around 12.00, 4 prisoners and one detainee escape from prison. Miron Wetipo, one of the prisoners is shot dead when trying to escape. One of the prisoner is finally caught while the other three escape.

[6] Rahmat Faisal, an employee at mobile phone counter,  found dead by Oktafinaus Yerisitow. The victim was suspected being shot around 13.00 on 13 December 2010

[7] Filep Karma and Buchtar Tabuni were detained as they are suspected as the mastermind of riot in the prison after the death of Wiron Wetipo, a man shot dead while trying to escape from prison. Actually, Filep Karma and Buchtar Tabuni just ask head of law and human rights department about the reason why Wetipo was shot dead

[8]Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate (MIFEE) is a joint program between local and national government. This program will place Merauke as global agriculture industry. The program is promising which says that in 2030 Indonesia will have additional reserved food such as rice of 1.95 million ton, corn 2.02 ton, and many other food reservation. Also, Merauke will have income of IDR 124.2 million per capita per year in 2030. The program will bring more people from Java to work in the industry. Sadly, the program has taken people’s land.

[9]Illegal mining in Degowo has happened since 2001 where local do the mining without outside intervention. But since 2003, intervention comes and backed up by military and police. As more outsiders come and do the mining, the locals are moved out and can no longer do traditional mining as they used to do. They are even forced to release their land to investors who are interested in the gold mining. Moreover, prostitutes are brought by investors and military to Degowo to entertain the locals.

[10] Freeport case is the longest and massive exploitation of natural resources in Papua. Although there have been many efforts initiated by Freeport to bring back trust of Papua such as giving Cooperate Social Responsibility (CSR) but the problems and mistrust remain

Related Articles
2

AWPA: West Papua 2010 Chronology of events

The Australia West Papua Association has produced a very useful chronology of all key events that occurred in West Papua in 2010.  The full document can be accessed here: West Papua 2010 Chronology of events,

The introduction is reprinted below:

Human rights situation in West Papua[1]

The human rights situation in West Papua continued to deteriorate in 2010. One incident in particular highlighted the worsening human rights situation and that was the shocking video footage of West Papuans being tortured by Indonesian soldiers. The video showed several men in military fatigues torturing two Papuans. The soldiers in the video threaten the two men with sharp weapons and pressed a burning bamboo stick against one of the men’s genitals. The torture of the men prompted a wave of international criticism with human rights organisations around the world condemning the actions  of the Indonesian military.  This incident was not an isolated incident and in further evidence of  human rights abuses another report  accused the police of burning down the village of Bigiragi in the Puncak Jaya district.  The report said that 16 Mobile Brigade officers had burned the village to the ground on October 11. The report said that at least 29 homes were destroyed in the incident leaving at least 150 people homeless

Military operations in Puncak Jaya

A number of  military operation took place in the Puncak Jaya region in 2010 and in fact security operations have been ongoing in the Puncak Jaya region for years . Security forces  conduct regular sweeps  (military operations) in the area to pursue members of the Free Papua Movement (OPM).  Many reports have pointed out the the security forces have great difficulty distinguishing  between what the term separatists  and the general public. These operations leave the local people traumatised and in fear for their lives.  In a report in Bintang Papua (29 June)  The local chief of police admitted that “the OPM  are all over the place including in the town of Mulia, mingling with the community. He said that because the features of the mountain people are almost the same as other people in the area, ‘it is making it very difficult for us to differentiate  between who is OPM and who is just an ordinary member of the community”. This statement raises great concerns that civilians are in danger of being targeted as members of the OPM. During these military operations villages have been destroyed as well as  gardens and livestock. In September  the House of Representatives (DPR) Law Commission deputy chairman, Tjatur Sapto Edy lamented the military operations in the Puncak Jaya Regency following a report by the  National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas HAM). Tjatur said there should be no more military operations and such approaches  are no longer suitable in a democracy. A report by Komnas HAM’s Papua chapter revealed 29 cases of rights abuses occurred in Puncak Jaya regency from 2004-2010, including the torture and rape of villagers in March 2010 by law enforcers.

In September  an article in the the SMH alleged that Indonesia’s elite counter-terrorism unit, Detachment 88, brutalised a group of separatists, repeatedly beating them in detention. Australia helps fund Detachment 88.  The report also said the Australian Government had sent an official to the Indonesian province of Maluku to investigate the  claims but an Australian embassy official denied there was an investigation going on although an embassy officer had visited Maluku as part of a regular program of provincial visits.

Leaked Kopassus report

In November investigative journalist Alan Nairn released a secret report by a Kopassus task force which shows a list of West Papuans engaged in human rights work are a target of the Indonesian Special Force Group, Kopassus. The list includes members of civil society organisations, church groups , activists, students and  members of the MRP.  The report can be found on his blog at

http://www.allannairn.com/2010/11/breaking-news-secret-files-show.html

In December cables released by WikiLeaks in relation to West Papuan human rights confirmed what NGOs  have been telling their governments for years, that it is the Indonesian military that are one of the main problems in West Papua.

The cables revealed that US diplomats blame the government in Jakarta for unrest in West Papua due to neglect, corruption and human rights abuses.  That Indonesian military commanders have been accused of illegal logging operations and drug smuggling from West Papua into Papua New Guinea, and also that a lifting of the US ban on training with Kopassus was made a condition of Obama’s  visit to Jakarta.

Also in December the coordinator of the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), a major Indonesian human rights group accused the National Police of being the state institution guilty of committing the highest number of acts of violence against the public in 2010.  In the Jakarta Post (7/12/10) , the Papua chapter of the National Commission for Human Rights (Komnas HAM) reported a 70 percent increase in the number of cases of violence in Papua, most of which were allegedly committed by security officers. The Jakarta-based Legal Aid Foundation  in another report said Indonesian law enforcers routinely torture suspects and convicts to extract confessions or obtain information. The groups report found beatings, intimidation and rape are so commonplace they are considered the norm. It also found that few victims believe they have the right to lodge complaints.

West Papua suffered from a number of natural disasters in 2010 including a 7.1magnitude earthquake  that occurred of the northern coast of Papua in June,  destroying a number of  villages with loss of life on Yapen island.  In October the town of Wasior was hit by flash  floods  causing severe damage leaving over 158 people dead, 145 persons missing and thousands left homeless. There was some debate if the cause of the floods was due to deforestation in the surrounding areas or was due to  unusually heavy rainfall

Political prisoners

It is difficult to known the exact number of political prisoners who are in jail in West Papua because of the difficulty of access and restrictions on the gathering of information in the territory. In Amnesty’s  International Report for  2010, it states

“At least 114 people were detained for peacefully expressing their views. The overwhelming majority were peaceful political activists who were sentenced to terms of imprisonment for raising prohibited pro independence flags in Maluku or Papua”.

And in an  extract from Human Rights Watch World Report for 2010, in relation to West Papua.  “Indonesian authorities have responded to a longstanding, low-level armed separatist insurgency in the provinces of Papua and West Papua with a strong troop presence and often harsh and disproportionate responses to non-violent dissent or criticism. Human Rights Watch has long expressed concerns over anti-separatist sweeps by the police, which often result in individuals who peacefully express support for independence being arrested and detained on charges of treason or rebellion (makar).

West Papua -one of our nearest neighbours

West Papua is one of our nearest neighbours and the West Papuan people face great challenges including  ongoing human rights abuses, the exploitation of their natural resources with little or no benefit to themselves, the danger of becoming a minority in their own land as the result of migrants arriving daily and a  HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The Australian Government has  always been concerned about instability in the region to our north but as events in 2010 have shown, it is the Indonesian military which  are causing the instability in West Papua. The recent reports of the torture of West Papuans by the Indonesian security forces and the information from the WikiLeaks cables about US concerns at the activities of the TNI in relation to West Papua, aptly show this.

Recommendations.

The Australian West Papua Association  (Sydney)

urges the Australian Government to re- think its policy of ties with the  Indonesian military until such time that Indonesian military  personnel involved in past human rights abuses are brought to justice and the culture of the Indonesian military becomes of an  acceptable standard to both the Australian people and Australian military. In the short term we urge the Government to put a moratorium on the training, funding and any ties between  the Australian military,  Detachment 88 and the special forces unit Kopassus, until a full inquiry is held into the activities of these units in relation to human rights abuses in the archipelago.

urges the Australian Government to sent a fact finding mission to West Papua to not only investigate the human rights situation in the territory but to see how Australia can  help the West Papuan people in capacity building in the fields of health  and education. We thank the Australian Government for the funding it has already given to aid  projects in West Papua but urge more aid-funding to support health programs and medical organizations (local and international) working on the ground in West Papua and in the long term to support the training of the West Papuan people themselves as health professionals.

There are a number of Indigenous  human rights NGOs in West Papua and the Australian Government can  strengthen  the  human rights situation in West Papua by supporting these organisations  with financial aid,  capacity building and education.

We recommended that human rights defenders working in human rights organisations in West Papua be funded to attend human rights courses in Australia and the region.. There are a number of programs in Australia which can  advance human rights and empower civil society in West Papua through education, training and capacity building. These programs are suitable for individual human rights defenders and community advocates.

We also call on the Australian Government to urge the Indonesian President to release all West Papuan political prisoners as a sign of good faith to the West Papuan people.

The problems in West Papua won’t be solved by Jakarta  deploying more troops to the region or conducting more military operations. What the West Papuans are asking for is dialogue between Jakarta  and West Papuan representatives.  AWPA calls on the Australian Government to urge the Indonesian Government to dialogue with representatives of the West Papuan people to solve the issues of concern held by the West Papuan people.

[1] AWPA (Sydney) uses the name “West Papua” to refer to the whole of the western half of the Island of New Guinea. However, “West Papua” at this time is divided into two provinces, Papua and West Papua.

Related Articles
9

DAP leader rejects police moves to question him

Bintang Papua, 11 January 2011

Forkorus Yaboisembut, the chairman of the Papuan Indigenous Council, DAP
has reported that two members of the police force came to visit him at
2pm the previous day, saying that they wanted to take him to Jayapura
police headquarters to question him about a case of bribery in
connection with attempts to kill him some time ago.

Speaking by phone to Bintang Papua, Forkorus said that he was confused
by the police officers’ visit because, according to him, the case they
wished to discuss had been resolved in a collegial fashion within the
kampung. He said that there had been some misunderstandings between
himself and some of his grandchildren but the matter had been resolved
peacefully in November 2010. If the police now intend to investigate the
matter, this would be quite wrong because the matter had already been
resolved within the family.

‘There is no need for the police to investigate the matter,’ said
Forkorus, ‘because I have already told the media that the matter has
been resolved.’ He said that the money involved had already been
returned to its rightful owners within the family. The incident had
occurred when one of his grandchildren, under the influence of drink,
had made threatening remarks against him.

The local chief of police has denied that they had made any attempt to
take Forkorus in for questioning.

0

Is violence against Papuans not an abuse of human rights?

Bintang Papua, 3 January 2011

Is violence against Papuans not an abuse of human rights?

Jakarta: The TNI (armed forces) has denied that violence perpetrated by army officers which resulted in the deaths of some Papuans can be
regarded as human rights violations. This relates to an incident in
Puncak Jaya in March 2010, which became public when a video of the
incident was circulated widely on the internet.

‘When this was investigated, it was not regarded as a violation of human rights but of acting against orders and not within the methods of interrogating detainees,’ said Lieut.General M Noer Muis, during his
reflections at the end of the year. Muis said that in order to investigate whether human rights violations had occurred, the TNI set
up an investigation team.

‘After we investigated the actions of the officers on that occasion, we
saw that they were on duty at the time, and made clear their position
towards the people involved.’

Four members of the armed forces faced charges of using violence, and the four men were tried before a military tribunal in Jayapura.

They were acting in violation of their orders and taking actions that
were unacceptable such as beating, kicking and so on when dealing with members of an armed gang known as the OPM.

The four men were under orders from the regional government to restore peace to the area which is indeed an area of many disturbances and armed gangs. ‘We were informed that the men were members of armed gangs. At the start,’ he said, ‘the four officers conducted the interrogation in accordance with procedures, such as separating the men from the women, and interrogating separately those who were bearing arms.’

‘They were properly treated using methods of persuasion and we even gave them food, but nothing was achieved, even though according to
information, they were members of an armed gang.’

Eventually, the four officers used more violent methods , with the
result that the detainees confessed that they were members of an armed gang and weapons were discovered.

All these actions had been recorded on video as evidence to prove that the interrogation was conducted in accordance with armed forces operational procedures. However, unfortunately the video that was only intended for internal purposes was leaked, and was circulated widely on the internet.’When this happened it was interpreted as being inhumane treatment and was said to be a violation of human rights.’

Muis said that investigations were now under way to find out how this
leak had occurred. There are many possibilities about how this might
have happened, he said and the military commander of the Cenderawasih military command had been instructed to coordinate with the police and in the intelligence agency Bais to discover who it was who had circulated the video, because this was very damaging to the armed forces.

He said they had also consulted with Komnas HAM, the National Human
Rights Commission in the hope that Komnas HAM would explain the matter to the general public.

—————–

0

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑