Tag: Kopassus

News from Papua: Police will persist in summoning Sokrates; Police urged to stop summoning Sokrates; Lawyers speak out about Sokrates case

Bintang Papua, 19 August 2010

Abridged in translation

Police will continue to summon Sokrates
The police force in Papua have said that they will persist in summoning
Duma Sokrates Yoman to appear for interrogation, in connection with his
allegation that the incidents in Puncak Jaya are part of a business
project of the army and the police (TNI/Polri).

Sokrates Yoman is president of the Fellowship of Baptist Churches in Papua.

The chief of police in Papua now says that his patience is exhausted and
they regard him as a witness. ‘In two or three days,’ said the Wachyono,
head of public relations of the police, ‘we will summon him as a
witness, instead of just asking him for clarifications,’ he said.

Yoman Sokrates has twice been invited by the police to give
clarifications about the events in Puncak Jaya and his charges that the
TNI/Polri are engaged in business activities in Puncak Jaya. After his
failure to respond to two summonses, he will be summoned as a witness,
on the basis of article 112 of the criminal code which states that
anyone summoned as a witness or as the accused is under obligation to
appear. If he still refuses to appear, he will be sent an official order
to appear. ‘This is what the law states and is not just what the police
are saying,’ said Wachyono.

As has been reported earlier, Sokrates Yoman has been accused of trying
to ‘corner’ the army and the police in connection with a series of
shootings against civilians in Puncak Jaya that have been going on since
2004.

Earlier reports in Bintang Papua stated that Sokrates Yoman declared
that he was undaunted by the police summons. He said that many people
have spoken out about the situation in Puncak Jaya but, ironically, he
was the only person to have been summoned by the police. He accused the
police of behaving unfairly and unprofessionally. ‘It is my belief that
the law enforcement agencies are acting on the orders of a sponsor who
are keen to exert pressure on me as a church leader,’ said Sokrates.

He was quoted as saying that he was ready to face the consequences and
would never run away. I will remain in my office or at home because this
is our homeland.’

Sokrates has called on the legislative assembly in Papua, the DPRP, to
summon the military commander of Papua and the chief of police of Papua
to explain what they have been doing and what their strategy is
regarding the situation in Puncak Jaya which has been going on for six
years.

‘We need to know who are the brains behind this and who stands to gain
from incidents that have resulted in many victims among the ordinary people.

——————————-

Police urged to stop summoning Sokrates
Bintang Papua 12 August 2010

The police summons to Sokrates and the failure to resolve the prolonged
conflict in Puncak Jaya has attracted the attention of the churches,
which are now calling for a national dialogue as the only way to resolve
the never-ending conflict.

On 12 August, a meeting held at the office of the Synod of the GKI was
attended by the leaders of all the main churches, Rev Miriono-Krey,
chair of the Synod of the GKI, Rev. Lipius Biniluk, chair of the Kingmi
Church in the Land of Papua, Dr Rev. Benny Giay, of the Fellowship of
Baptist Churches in Papua, Rev. Andreas Kogoya, and the Bishop of
Jayapura, Leo Laba Lajar.

The meeting reached agreement on several statements expressing their
concern with a number of cases in the Land of Papua and especially in
Puncak Jaya.

The church leaders called for a national dialogue to be held as soon as
possible to find a solution to all the problems in Papua on the basis
of the princiiples of justice, dignity and humanitarianism, mediated by
a neutral third party. The churches stated that they would consistently
and firmly fight for the rights of God’s people, in accordance with the
teachings of Jesus Christ.

The churches called on the governor of the province of Papua, church
leaders throughout the land of Papua, the Papuan Customary Council
(DAP), the Papuan People Assembly (MRP), the Papuan Legislative
Assmbly, DPRP, the military command of Papua and the chief of police of
Papua to enter into dialogue, facilitated by the church.

The church leaders also urged the chief of police to stop summoning
Sokrates Yoman, the president of the Fellowship of Baptist Churches.
They also called on the people living in the district of Puncak Jaya and
on the people throughout the Land of Papua to remain calm in face of the
on-going tragedy in the Land of Papua.

The DPRP and the MRP were urged to open their eyes and ears to the
series of shootings that have been occurring in the district of Puncak
Jaya and to summon the governor of the province of Papua as the civil
authority in Papua, the Papua chief of police and the military commander
as those responsible for the security situation to explain the many
incidents of violence that have been occurring in Puncak Jaya up to the
present.

In particular the chief of police should say what the police have been
doing to reveal those responsible for the terror shootings in that
district. The National Human Rights Commission representative office in
Papua should set up an independent team to investigate to discover the
people behind all this, and to produce accurate data in the interests of
law enforcement and for justice and truth.

——————————

Lawyers speak out about the Sokrates case
Bintang 13 August 2010

A number of lawyers have expressed their opinions about the police
summons to Sokrates Yoman, head of the Fellowship of Baptist Churches.
The fact that the police have made statements in the media has attracted
their attention.

According to the lawyer Gustaf R. Kawer, if Sokrates is regarded as a
witness, that means that there must also be a defendant. The police may
summon him up to three times and if he fails to appear, then force may
be used in accordance with the law.

If Sokrates is believed to be in any way connected to the accused, this
must be based on initial evidence. There should be two witnesses as well
as the necessary evidence. It is not correct for the police simply to
say something in the media and then go ahead and arrest Sokrates.

If it is simply about a statement made by Sokrates in the press, he is
protected by the law on the press. ‘According to the press law, when a
journalist publishes his comments, he should be confronted by the person
against whom the charge was made. Once the institution that has been
charged has used its right of reply, the matter should be regarded as
closed.’

If the matter results in defamation of the person in question, said
Kawer, it is premature of the police and means that they are acting
unprofessionally. They are simply reacting to something while at the
same time showing that they cannot accept criticism.

Speaking along similar lines as Kawer, Johannis Maturbongs, the
coordinator of Kontras, said that the army and the police should accept
the remarks made by Sokrates as a form of control from civil society.
‘The police summons was premature because all that Sokrates was doing
was exerting control on behalf of civil society regarding the events
that have been occurring in Puncak Jaya.since 2004.

What has been happening is highly regrettable because there have been
casualties not only among members of the security forces but also a
considerable number of casualties among the ordinary people. The events
there have been quite extraordinary yet the police have failed to
perform their function which is to discover the perpetrators. It is as
though the police are using the words of Soktrates as proof against
those responsible. ‘They are not treating Sokrates as a community
leader and church leader who is feeling deeply concerned about the
situation.’

Johanis also said it is the duty of the National Human Rights
Commission, KomnasHAM, in Papua as as well in Jakarta to respond.

‘It is up to Komnas HAM to thoroughly investigate what has been
happening in Puncak Jaya because there have been many civilian casualties.’

AIIA ACCESS 'West Papua's Search for Self-Determination' – Dr Scott Burchill and Herman Wainggai

http://blip.tv/file/4012065

Enjoy the viewing of parts 1 & 2 of the AIIA ACCESS ‘West Papua’s Search for Self-Determination’

Many thanks again to Dr Scott Burchill and Herman Wainggai for speaking, and of course the AIIA Victoria for hosting this event amid the diplomatic controversy.


Dr Scott Burchill


Herman Wainggai, WPNA

Part 1 | Part 2
At this Australian Institute of International Affairs event – which Indonesian Government officials tried to stop – political commentator and academic Dr Scott Burchill and West Papuan organiser Herman Wanggai talk about West Papua’s fight for self-determination.
The Indonesian province of West Papua has witnessed a struggle between Indonesian security forces and West Papuan resistance fighters since the 1960s. Tensions remain high today because of the cultural distinctiveness of the Melanesian Papuans, repression by the Indonesian military which observers have likened to the force once used against the East Timorese, and the richness of the province’s resources base. Burchill argues that Australia’s lack of concern is an ongoing effect of the Jakarta lobby’s discredited argument about the fragility of Indonesian territorial integrity, which continues to trump human rights concerns.
Melbourne, August 2010

West Papua is Indonesia’s Palestine.

West Papua is Indonesia’s Palestine.

Opinion
August 16, 2010

John Ondawame is right. West Papua is on the verge of a “total intifada” (Ben Bohane, ‘West Papua warns of intifada against Jakarta’, Sydney Morning Herald, August 7 2010). Intifada means to “shake off” in Arabic. It has become a word used to describe the desire by Palestinians to free themselves from foreign occupation. The question is what kind of intifada is and will take place in West Papua? Will it be like the recent Palestinian intifada, led by a resurgent Hamas? An uprising of fury waged through political terror. Or will it be like the 1987 Palestinian intifada, a largely unarmed insurrection?

West Papua is the Indonesia’s Palestine. Papuans consider that their land has been occupied without their consent. Freedom of expression is prohibited, foreign journalists banned, migrants continue to pour into the country, and the police and military keep a repressive lid on boiling Papuan anger. It is also a modern day Avatar. Papuans are defending their land form the exploitative practices of resource extractive industries. For the Papuans theirs is a struggle for survival.

However, unlike Palestine and the film Avatar, resistance to the Indonesian government’s rule has overwhelmingly been through civilian based movements. Only last month, for instance, 20,000 plus people – students, women, young people, religious leaders, NGO activists, traditional chiefs, farmers and even members of the Majelis Rakyat Papua, West Papua’s indigenous senate – all converged on the capital and occupied the provincial parliament for two days to pressure the Papuan political elite to hand back Special Autonomy, a package or policy, finance, and legislation designed to give Papuans a measure of self-rule. After ten years of broken promises and still born hopes, Papuans concluded Special Autonomy had failed. It is a news story that should have been covered by every major media outlet. But here in Australia we heard next to nothing.

Now, as Bohane writes, Papuans are feeling abandoned by their Melanesian kin. At the recent Pacific Island Forum, Vanuatu tried to raise the West Papua issue but Papua New Guinea’s political leaders blocked the discussion. Again. The Australia and New Zealand governments also failed to raise their voice for on behalf of Papuan rights. Again.

Some Papuan leaders are now talking about making the territory ungovernable through mass civilian based non-cooperation with Jakarta. How long civil resistance continues depends not only on the tactical and strategic choices made by Papuan leaders. In part it also depends on whether solidarity movements in the region, including inside Indonesia, can raise the political and economic costs so that political leaders and foreign companies feel compelled to agree to what Papuans have been demanding for years: political dialogue with Jakarta and the international community about their grievances.

Will the international community support the Papuan’s right to rise up for freedom? Or will they send the same message they sent to the Kosovo Albanians? That international intervention and the goal of independence will only come about when there is armed struggle and mass violence. Surely we can all do better than that.

Jason MacLeod

(The writer lectures in political science at the University of Queensland.)

HRW: Indonesia: Free ‘Balloon Activists’ in Ambon

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Indonesia: Free ‘Balloon Activists’ in Ambon
Ill-Treatment of Political Prisoners in Earlier Episodes Raises Grave Concerns
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2010/08/10/indonesia-free-balloon-activists-ambon
August 10, 2010

Related Materials:
Prosecuting Political Aspiration
Indonesia: Stop Prosecuting Peaceful Political Expression
Indonesia’s Not-So-Well-Kept Secret

Sadly, free speech in Indonesia is about as sturdy as the detained activists’ balloons. The Indonesian government publicly claims that it respects freedom of expression, so it should live up to its word and free these peaceful protesters immediately.
Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch

(New York) – The Indonesian authorities should immediately release the activists for Moluccan independence arrested in Ambon at the beginning of August 2010, Human Rights Watch said today. The activists were allegedly planning to float banned Moluccan independence flags attached to balloons to protest an August 3 visit by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

Local sources reported that between 7 and 15 activists were arrested in connection with balloon launch plans to express political opposition to Indonesian rule in the Moluccas Islands. The police reportedly confiscated as evidence 133 posters that read “Free Alifuru and Papua Political Prisoners,” two copies of the June 2010 Human Rights Watch report “Prosecuting Political Aspiration,” 17 separatist Southern Moluccas Republic (Republik Maluku Selatan or RMS) flags, and one 12-pound gas cylinder to be used to fill the balloons. Yudhoyono was in Ambon to open the “Sail Banda” event, organized by the Tourism Ministry and the Moluccas Islands government to promote tourism in the Banda Sea.

“Sadly, free speech in Indonesia is about as sturdy as the detained activists’ balloons,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “The Indonesian government publicly claims that it respects freedom of expression, so it should live up to its word and free these peaceful protesters immediately.”

Human Rights Watch expressed grave concern that past torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners in Ambon puts the recently detained activists at serious risk. The detainees should have immediate access to family members and legal counsel, Human Rights Watch said.

Those arrested include Benny Sinay, Izak Sapulete, Andy Marunaya, Edwin Marunaya, Ongen Krikof, Marven Bremer, Steven Siahaya, and Ony Siahaya. Jacob Sinay, who lost his civil service job in December 2009 because of his political activism, is also being held. Most were arrested at their homes on August 2 and 3. Some were also arrested because they publicly unfurled the separatist RMS flag in some places in the archipelago, including on Ambon and Saparua islands.

Observers at the Sail Banda event in the Yos Sudarso seaport in Ambon described what they considered to be a very large deployment of police officers and military personnel. The security forces apparently sought to prevent a repeat of Yudhoyono’s June 29, 2007 visit, when 28 local Moluccan dancers were able to enter the Ambon stadium, dance the cakalele war dance, and unfurl the RMS flag.

More than 70 men were arrested after the 2007 dance. Many were tortured after being handed over to Anti-Terror Unit 88 forces based in Ambon. The Ambon district court convicted more than three dozen of them, including the dance leader Johan Teterisa, of treason and sentenced them to prison terms ranging from 5 to 20 years. Teterisa was sentenced to 15 years and is in the Malang prison in eastern Java.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern that Ambon authorities confiscated the recent Human Rights Watch report, “Prosecuting Political Aspiration,” as possible evidence in a case against the activists. The report profiles the cases of 10 prominent Papuan and Moluccan activists currently behind bars for expressing their political views, and details ill-treatment they suffered in detention and violations of their due process rights.

In June, Human Rights Watch discussed the findings of the report in Jakarta with officials from the Law and Human Rights Ministry, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, and the National Commission on Human Rights. At least 100 Papuans and Moluccans are in prison in Indonesia for peacefully expressing their political views.

“By arresting the Ambon activists, the Indonesian authorities are repeating the very mistakes that raised doubts globally about Indonesia’s commitment to improving human rights,” Robertson said. “The government should release these peaceful protesters immediately and spare the country further international condemnation.”

Background
Human Rights Watch takes no position on claims to self-determination in Indonesia or in any other country. Consistent with international law, Human Rights Watch supports the right of all individuals, including independence supporters, to express their political views peacefully without fear of arrest or other forms of reprisal.

Most of the current political prisoners in Indonesia were convicted of makar (treason) under articles 106 and 110 of the Indonesian Criminal Code.

However, freedom of expression is protected both in Indonesia’s constitution and international human rights law. The constitution in article 28(e) states, “Every person shall have the right to the freedom of association and expression of opinion.” Article 28(f) provides, “Every person shall have the right to communicate and obtain information for the development of his/her personal life and his/her social environment, and shall have the right to seek, acquire, possess, keep, process, and convey information by using all available channels.”

In December 2007, the Indonesian government issued Government Regulation 77/2007, which regulates regional symbols. Article 6 of the regulation bans display of flags or logos that have the same features as “organizations, groups, institutions or separatist movements.” Both the Papuan Morning Star flag and the RMS flag are considered to fall under this ban.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia ratified in 2006, also protects the right to free expression. Under article 19, “[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”

Journalist's death overshadows launch of Papua food project

TAPOL and DTE press release

Journalist’s death overshadows launch of Papua food project

11 August 2010 – The death of a local journalist has increased concerns about a giant food estate launched today in Merauke, Southeastern Papua by Indonesia’s Minister of Agriculture.

TAPOL and Down to Earth, the International Campaign for Ecological Justice in Indonesia are calling for a moratorium on the food project, known as MIFEE (Merauke Integrated Food and Energy Estate) until independent assessments of the political, economic, socio-cultural, environmental and gender impacts of the project have been undertaken.

The suspicious death of the journalist, Ardiansyah Matra’is, in late July, following threats against him, has been linked to his coverage of this week’s local elections for the district head in Merauke.

Other journalists have also been threatened in what appears to have been a concerted campaign to stifle free expression ahead of the elections. Current district head, Johannes Gluba-Gebze, has been instrumental in planning and promoting the food project.

“The potential adverse impacts of MIFEE for the local population are massive such that full transparency and accountability are required. A free media is essential to ensuring effective democratic oversight of the project,” say TAPOL and Down to Earth who are closely monitoring the project.

“President Susilo Bambang Yudhyono’s ambition to ‘feed Indonesia then feed the world’ may come at the expense of many Papuans, and could add to wider frustrations about the lack of political, social and economic autonomy in Papua,” they add.

The project is likely to contribute to the marginalisation of indigenous Papuans by taking over the customary-owned land and resources which provide their livelihoods. It is also likely to exacerbate existing human rights grievances, and accelerate environmental deforestation and degradation.

“The enhanced security presence likely to be associated with MIFEE will increase tensions and add to the vulnerability of Merauke’s inhabitants, especially as Indonesia’s notorious Kopassus special forces are active in the area”, warn TAPOL and Down to Earth.

Background and issues
MIFEE is a collection of commercial plantations, planned to cover 1.6 million hectares. The project is being promoted as a means of stabilizing Indonesia’s food security. It has received support from the Government of Indonesia, and Merauke has been designated a national ‘Special Economic Zone’ (SEZ) in order to attract the US$8.6 billion of investment needed for the project. Over 30 investors from Indonesia, Japan, China, Singapore, Korea and the Middle East have expressed an interest in MIFEE,[1] Their involvement appears to be part of a global trend to make money by buying up lands abroad for food production.

Tens of thousands more workers and economic migrants, mostly from outside Papua, are expected to settle in Merauke and the surrounding areas. The indigenous people of Merauke have already felt the impact of transmigration programmes, first implemented under Dutch colonial rule and continued under Indonesia’s Suharto regime. Population growth, changes in population demographics and the further loss of land and resources as a result of MIFFE could have a devastating and irreversible impact on the livelihoods of the local population, especially indigenous Papuans.

The huge number of newcomers may strain Merauke’s underdeveloped services and further marginalise an already minority indigenous population. The commercialisation of land and takeover of indigenous Papuans’ land will affect the livelihoods of Papuans and could prevent the transfer of knowledge, culture and language from one generation to the next.

Sustained local knowledge of tribal boundaries, land rights, land use, customary law and taboos are all dependent on having access to land and respect for traditional rights over the land. If MIFEE goes ahead, indigenous people will be faced with new boundaries and non-traditional crops such as oil palm, rice, sugar cane, corn and soyabean.

There has been strong opposition to MIFEE from local NGOs such as SKP-KAM, FokerLSM, SORPATOM and AMAN.[2] However, the death of Ardiansyah Matra’is and campaign of terror against journalists have closed down the space for criticism. These groups have emphasised on-going concerns about targeted surveillance and intimidation of NGOs and journalists. In 2009, a joint report by the Indonesian environmental NGO Telapak and the UK’s Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) stated that ‘irregular groups allied to [Johannes Gluba] Gebze’ operate in Merauke and ‘work in unison with the state security forces to monitor and intimidate any dissenters in the region.’

The security strategy for MIFEE is unclear, as is the resulting direct and indirect impact on the local population. Merauke is located near the Indonesia-Papua New Guinea (PNG) border and is already a highly militarized area. A 2009 Human Rights Watch report details abuses committed by Kopassus, who have close ties with Gebze.

In other parts of Papua where natural resources are being exploited, state security forces are routinely employed to protect commercial assets. There has often been an expansion in these areas of the sex and alcohol industries, which are run by migrants or the police and military themselves. The potential impact on the population’s health is made clear by FokerLSM which reports that Merauke has the highest number of HIV/AIDS cases after Mimika district, where the giant mining company Freeport operates.

The scale of MIFEE raises major environmental and ecological concerns. The conversion of protected forest for agricultural use seems likely, despite both Indonesia’s Forestry Minister and the Coordinating Minister for the Economy stating otherwise.

Widespread licensed deforestation in Merauke would contradict the Government of Indonesia’s commitment to reduce green-house gas emissions by 26% by 2020. It also raises questions over a recent billion dollar REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) agreement with the Government of Norway to preserve Indonesia’s rainforests, in particular in Papua.

ENDS

Contact: Paul Barber (TAPOL) on +44 1420 80153 or +44 7747 301 739 or Carolyn Marr (DTE) on +44 16977 46266

[1] Medco Group; Artha Graha Network; PT Bangun Cipta Sarana; Comexindo International; Sumber Alam Sutra; Korindo; PT Rajawali Nusantara Indonesia; Sinar Mas; PT Kertas Nusantara; Mitsubishi (Japan); Wilmar (Singapore); LG International (Korea).
[2] Office for Justice and Peace of the Archdicese of Merauke (SKP-KAM); Papua NGOs Cooperation Forum (FokerLSM); Solidarity for Papuans (SORPATOM); The Indigenous People’s Alliance of Indonesia (AMAN)

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑