Tag: nonviolent action

Photos from KNPB mass actions in Wamena, Sept 2

Mass Rallies were held across West Papua by the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) on Thursday September 2. They demanded an immediate return of Special Autonomy, and called for a Referendum as the only solution to Papuan’s grievances.

In Wamena, several thousand people gathered to peacefully rally. Although security forces were present in large numbers, there were no reports from Wamena of any immediate security force violence or arrests directly related to the rallies.

Photos follow – please click on thumbnail for full size

Indonesia and the challenge of Papuan separatism

copyright rests with original author

Piece originally appears at http://www.idsa.in/node/5803/1097

Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis [India]
August 25, 2010

IDSA COMMENT

Indonesia and the challenge of Papuan separatism

Bilveer Singh

Introduction

If there are any symbols of Papuans’ continued quest and determination
for sovereign independence1, it is their continued attachment to their
flag, the Morning Star or Bintang Kejora (in Indonesian), their
Anthem, Hai Tanahku Papua (in Indonesian) or Oh, My Land Papua,
written by a Dutch missionary in the 1930s and the continued existence
of the OPM, Papua Independence Movement since 1964. The Morning Star
was first formally unveiled on 1 December 1961, symbolising the onset
of the Republic of West Papua and flew till October 1962, when the
former Dutch colony was transferred to the United Nations Temporary
Executive Authority through a deal brokered by the United States,
mainly to prevent Indonesia from joining the Soviet Camp during the
Cold War. Indonesia took control of the territory in the following
year and formally incorporated West Papua, renamed West Irian, into
Indonesia in 1969, recognised by the United Nations. However, Papuans
have continued to challenge the territory’s integration into Indonesia
and a bloody struggle has ensued ever since, with supporters of Papuan
independence claiming that more than 100,000 Papuans have been killed
by the Indonesian military. The violence has continued right to the
present period and it remains illegal to fly the Bintang Kejora in
Indonesia and many Papuans continue to be incarcerated for doing so.
Anatomy of Papua

Located on the easternmost part of Indonesia, geographically it
constitutes one-fifth of the country but only has a population of 3
million (of which the natives constitute only 50 per cent). Indonesia,
where 90 per cent of the people are Muslim, has a population of nearly
240 million. Papua is a largely Christian territory, where the
Protestants constitute the majority, followed by the Catholics and
then Muslims. However, tribalism is extremely dominant with more than
265 tribes representing the Putra Daerah or Sons of the Soil
(natives). Yet, the territory is extremely rich in natural resources,
especially oil, gas, gold and copper. It is also geo-strategically
important, bordering on land with Papua New Guinea and fronting the
Pacific Ocean.
Explaining Papuans’ Desire for Independence

Even though Indonesia declared independence in August 1945 and had to
fight the Dutch to gain complete sovereignty in December 1949, the
Dutch only surrendered Papua in October 1962. This represents an
important historical anomaly as Papua remained for another 12 years as
a Dutch colony compared to the rest of Indonesia. This provided the
Dutch ample time to develop a local Papuan elite that was committed to
independence and hence the importance of the Morning Star, National
Anthem, not to mention a rudimentary Parliament that was formed in
Jayapura in 1961. However, due to the Cold War, President Kennedy
succeeded in pressurising the Dutch to surrender the territory in 1962
and Indonesia, with the support of the West, legitimately gained
control of the territory by 1969. However, this was largely undertaken
against the wishes of the Papuan elites and hence the continued
struggle for Merdeka or independence ever since.

> From the perspective of Papuans, there are a number of grievances that
have provided a catalyst and triggered their demands for independence.
First, the sense of historical injustice when Papua was handed over to
Indonesia by the Dutch in 1962 without consulting Papuan elites and
later, the fraudulent manner in which the referendum, called Act of
Free Choice (but what the Papuans call Act of No Choice) was held in
1969. Thus, for the Papuans, Indonesia is an illegal colonizer and the
territory’s status should be reviewed through a referendum. Second,
gross unhappiness in the manner Jakarta has flooded the territory with
non-Papuans, mostly Muslims, thereby creating what Papuans refer to as
‘demographic and cultural genocide’ and where they are fast becoming
minorities in their own land. This has also intensified
social-cultural conflicts between the natives (Putra Daerah) and the
transmigrants (Pendatangs), the latter usually backed by officialdom.
Third, demographically, Papuans feel discriminated against, with the
majority Malay Indonesians looking down on the Melanesian Papuans (for
their dress code, eating and drinking habits, etc) and worst still,
most privileges being given to the former at the expense of the
latter.

Fourth, there is the rising impoverisation of the Papuans. Despite the
immense wealth of the territory, Papuans are among the poorest in
Indonesia. Instead, the wealth is sucked out to benefit non-Papuans
and foreigners, who in alliance with Jakarta, continue to benefit from
Jakarta’s rule over the territory. The operation of Freeport McMoran,
the world’s largest gold mine operator, is a case in point. Fifth,
Papuans are also in rage as the territory’s environment has been
pillaged and more important, the forest, which for the Papuans is not
only a community property but also important religiously, being
plundered. Finally, most blatant of all, has been the immense human
rights violations undertaken continuously by almost every government
in power in Jakarta since the days of Sukarno. Papuans have continued
to suffer as Indonesia has continued to treat the territory as a
colony and where any form of opposition, peaceful or otherwise, is
dealt with brutally. Indonesians refer to this as the ‘security
approach’ to development and Indonesia’s democratization in 1998 has
not really altered much as far as Papua is concerned. Many Papuan
leaders have been murdered by the Indonesian military, such as Theys
Eluay in November 2001. The continued existence, despite weaknesses,
of the Papua Independence Movement, is a testimony of Papuans’
willingness to take to arms to achieve their goal of independence. In
short, injustice, intolerance, exploitation and violence are the main
drivers that have motivated Papuans to seek an alternative future for
themselves.
Why is Indonesia Unwilling to give in to Papuan Separatists?

Papua is not only strategically vital, being a land, air and maritime
border zone, but probably more important is the immense wealth it
possesses. Jakarta depends on Papua for the bulk of its revenue and
Papua is probably Indonesia’s most important ‘golden goose’. It would
be a strategic and economic disaster if the territory were to be lost.
Also, Indonesians view Papua as an integral part of the Unitary State
of the Republic of Indonesia and any leader even contemplating giving
independence to Papua would be viewed as a national traitor, a price
President Habibie paid for East Timor’s independence. At the same
time, despite Papuans’ unhappiness, the bulk of the international
community continues to support Indonesia’s ownership of Papua given
that Indonesia is much more important than Papua. Jakarta leaders have
also argued that to give in to Papuans’ demand for independence would
open the Pandora’s Box leading others to demand likewise, resulting in
the break-up of Indonesia. In the final analysis, it is the simple
issue of political, economic and military asymmetry, and where the
Papuans are simply not in a position to challenge and dislodge
Indonesia. As such, while Indonesia is unprepared to abandon the
territory and most Papuans are unhappy to remain in Indonesia, the
impasse cannot be broken due to the paralysis both parties find
themselves in.
Indonesia’s Peace Overtures

Following the collapse of Suharto’s New Order and the onset of
democratic Indonesia, Jakarta has made peace with other separatists,
be it in East Timor (through a referendum leading to independence) or
with Aceh (leading to greater autonomy and local rule). In the same
vein, Jakarta has peddled what is referred to as Autonomi Khusus or
Special Autonomy in 2001, to meet half way Papuan grievances and
demands, and rejected a referendum a la East Timor as was demanded by
Papuan activists, fearing a break up Indonesia. While Papuans have
gained much in terms of Special Autonomy funds (5 trillion Indonesia
Rupiahs to date), the territory remains backward as the bulk of the
money is used for administration and pilfered through corruption. At
the same time, despite agreeing to a Special Autonomy status for
Papua, Jakarta has continuously undermined it. First, without
consulting the local administrative bodies, as was provided for in the
Special Autonomy arrangements, Jakarta divided Papua into three
administrative provinces even though later the Constitutional Court
deemed this illegal but two provinces remain in operation today.
Second, despite agreeing to permit Papuans to display their cultural
attributes, Jakarta reneged on this, arguing that it was promoting
separatism, especially with regard to the display of the Morning Star
and singing of Hai Tanahku Papua. In short, Papuans continue to view
Jakarta in bad faith and this is the main reason why the Cendrawasih
(Bird of Paradise) symbolising Papua, continues to fear the Garuda,
symbolising Indonesia.
Papuans Remain Unsatisfied and Suspicious

While some Papuan elites accepted the Special Autonomy proposal,
eventually, most in Papua were unhappy as hardliners in Jakarta
believed that too much had already been given to the Papuans and that
if no ‘roll-back’ takes place it will only be a matter of time before
Papuan independence becomes a reality. Also, most Papuans do not see
any major improvement in their livelihood, especially the violence
against them by the military, police and intelligence apparatus.
Instead, many Papuans would prefer to internationalise their plight
and seek a third party to settle the issue as they do not trust the
Jakarta elites and Indonesians in general. Jakarta, instead, realising
that the Papuans are being lost, has tried to launch various ‘peace
talks’, organised by the Coordinating Ministry for Politics, Legal and
Security Affairs, the Indonesian Intelligence Agency, Home Affairs and
even Indonesian Resilience Agency (linked to the Defence Ministry) but
with no success. Incumbent President Bambang Yudhoyono has tasked the
Indonesian Institute of Sciences to draw up a ‘road map’ for Papua’s
future, but again little progress has been made. All these Indonesian
measures are aimed at circumventing internationalization of the Papuan
issue, which most Papuan elites demand but which Jakarta has been
unwilling to agree even though with regard to the Aceh settlement, a
third party, with the support of the Norwegian Government, succeeded
in making a breakthrough. Papuans are hoping for a similar opportunity
so as to ensure that the agreement reached between Jakarta and
themselves will be honoured.

In the meantime, as the deadlock continues, Papua continues to burn.
Violence by the security apparatus against Papuans continues to be
reported, with the military and police hunting the new separatist
leader, Goliat Tabuni, who succeeded Kelly Kwalik, who was shot dead
in December 2009 by security forces. With little or no hope of
progress, with the abuses and violence continuing, the traditional
separatist leaders are also losing their grip over their followers,
with many of these leaders accused of being covert operatives for
Jakarta. Amidst the continuing violence, Jakarta is rumoured to be
thinking of creating additional provinces in the territory, in a
traditional game of divide and rule, to weaken Papuan nationalism and
quest for independence. This has, instead, led to the rise of new
radical and hard-line younger leaders who are prepared to raise the
stakes through greater violence, to make Jakarta pay more dearly, and
more importantly bring the fight to Jakarta so that Indonesians and
the world community will pay greater attention to their plight. In
short, the HAMAS of Papua seems to be surfacing and if Jakarta
continues to neglect Papuans’ demands, the struggle is likely to
worsen, at great cost of life to both Papuans and Indonesians as a
whole, and where the international community, with stakes in Papua and
Indonesia, will also be affected. Not only will Indonesia’s democracy
but more importantly the very idea of Indonesia as a unitary state
will probably be under stress and test.

1. For deeper insights into the Papuan conundrum see Bilveer Singh,
Papua: Geopolitics and the Quest for Nationhood (New Brunswick, USA:
Transaction Press, 2008).

SMH: Papuans' Future an Open Question After Failure of Autonomy

MEDIA INFORMATION:

The Sydney Morning Herald
September 4, 2010
http://www.smh.com.au/world/papuans-future-an-open-question-after-failure-of-autonomy-20100903-14ucc.html

Papuans’ Future an Open Question After Failure of Autonomy

by Tom Allard

JAKARTA: A broad consensus is emerging in Indonesia that special
autonomy for the country’s fractious provinces of Papua and West
Papua has failed miserably.

> From military advisers to the President, Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono, to respected think tanks and the indigenous
population of the resource-rich region, there is near unanimity
that the policy introduced almost 10 years ago to placate
separatist sentiment has resulted in only deeper discontent.
However, there is little agreement on who, and what, is to
blame, or how to repair the situation.

As part of a dialogue to address simmering discontent in the
region, the Indonesian government would have to acknowledge and
apologise for the manipulated vote in 1969 that led to its
inclusion in the republic, said the Jakarta-based analyst for
the International Crisis Group, Sidney Jones, the author of two
recent reports on the provinces.

Ms Jones warned that ”increased radicalisation is likely” if
reconciliation efforts are not pursued by Dr Yudhoyono.

Jakarta’s failure to address human-rights abuses in Papua and
West Papua, the two Indonesian provinces that make up the
western half of the island of New Guinea, the continuing heavy
presence of security forces, an influx of migrants, rampant
corruption and persistent poverty are all undermining the
”special autonomy” offered to the region almost a decade ago.

Violence has worsened in the past two years, and the Papuan
People’s Council, the body set up under special autonomy to
represent indigenous values, decided to symbolically ”hand
back” special autonomy to the provincial parliament as part of
a wave of mass rallies that took place in June and July.

Ms Jones said Dr Yudhoyono must begin talks as a matter of
urgency, starting discussions informally to avoid ”posturing on
both sides” before engaging in a public reconciliation. New
governing arrangements must then follow for the region, which
remains the major source of separatist agitation across the
sprawling multi-ethnic nation.

”They are going to have to address the Act of Free Choice and
acknowledge that there was a manipulated process,” Ms Jones
said. ”An apology and an acknowledgement about it is needed to
get over the hump.”

The region, with its Melanesian indigenous population, was
initially excluded from the fledgling Indonesian state during
negotiations with the former Dutch colonial government,
remaining under the control of the Netherlands until the 1960s.

Western powers ceded to Jakarta’s long-standing demands for the
region’s inclusion in the republic, but only after a United
Nations sponsored vote of Papuans. Rather than a broad
referendum, a hand-picked group of just over 1000 Papuans voted
unanimously in the 1969 plebiscite to join Indonesia. The vote
was widely derided as farcical and unrepresentative, and it
remains a potent source of rancour among Papuans and their most
powerful weapon in challenging the legitimacy of Jakarta’s rule.

While Ms Jones does not advocate a new referendum on Papuan
independence, or view it as likely, it remains a central demand
of a coalition of Papuan groups and the Papuan People’s Council,
or Majelis Rakyat Papua, a body with authority to speak for the
Melanesian population under the special autonomy arrangements.

Jakarta has declined to even respond to the demands. Even so, it
may well be a disappointing exercise for independence advocates
as the two provinces’ population is now reckoned to be split
evenly between the indigenous people and migrants from elsewhere
in Indonesia.

Dr Yudhoyono, in his only concession to the unrest, agreed to
begin an ”audit” of the region’s special autonomy next year.

Jakarta is dissatisfied with special autonomy because the Papuan
provinces get more money from the central government than any
other – $1 billion a year, or about 10 times more than provinces
in Java – but have yet to see much economic progress.

A leading Papuan activist in the main city of Jayapura,
Frederika Korain, said the special autonomy funds were going to
non-Melanesian Papuans who dominate the economy.

”In some areas, all the shops belong to non-Papuans,” she said.

Ms Korain said any reconciliation would have to be preceded by
the end to abuses by Indonesian security forces, curbing the
growth of pro-Jakarta militias and a sincere effort to give
Papuans back their ”dignity”.

She flagged a continuing campaign of mass mobilisation by
indigenous Papuans. While most are determined to pursue
non-violent means to achieve their ends, there is a small but
growing element who support taking armed action.

DAP Hubula area office torched in Wamena

Attackers have burned down DAP’s (Dewan Adat Papua – Papuan Customary Council) Hubula area office on the outskirts of Wamena in West Papua’s Central Highlands. Coming days before a public event planned there and amidst a state campaign of intimidation against DAP, the attack is believed to have been coordinated by Indonesian military and police intelligence and adds to the climate of repression facing West Papuan activists.

(more follows after latest images)


During the night of August 25 2010, unknown attackers torched the Hubula area office of DAP (Dewan Adat Papua – Papuan Customary Council) in Kama village, Wamena district, in West Papua’s Central Highlands region. Three members of PETAPA (Penjaga Tanah Papua – Defenders of the Land of Papua) who were sleeping in the wooden thatch-roofed building managed to escape unharmed. The office had been completed in May 2010, and was scheduled to host a public unveiling on September 1.

DAP is a Papua-wide network of customary communities working to uphold the cultural rights and restore the self-determination of indigenous Papuans; its presence is particularly strong in the Wamena region. In the weeks leading up to the attack, local DAP members have built new communication posts (‘posko’) in several villages surrouding Wamena. In response to DAP’s growing organized rural community presence, the Kapolres (regional police commander) travelled to the sites of of upcoming posko unveilings and warned local community leaders against associating with DAP, calling it a ‘wild organization’ and accusing it of disturbing the peace. Amidst the growing tension, additional units of Brimob’s (Police Mobile Brigade) US-funded counter-terrorism unit, Special Detachment 88, have been deployed to Wamena from the Papuan capital Jayapura. In the eyes of DAP activists, the burning of their Hubula office carries all the signs of being organized by state security forces: “This attack is clearly the work of Indonesian intelligence agents, who are worried about the widespread support for DAP at the grassroots level in the region” according to DAP spokesperson Dominikus Sorabut.

On August 23, members of Indonesia’s state security and intelligence agencies, including BIN (State Intelligence Body), the US-funded Kopassus (Military Special Commando) and Regional Police, organized a meeting with a select group of local ‘tribal chiefs’ known as BMP (Barisan Merah Putih – Red and White Front). BMP is an indigenous militia sponsored by the Indonesian security forces and linked to LMA, the official state customary organization with close ties to the Indonesian military. After the meeting, a notice was repeatedly broadcast on their behalf on state radio RRI urging local people to stay away from DAP activities and alleging that DAP’s opening of posko ‘disturbs public security’. Though neither BMP nor LMA can claim any widespread support among indigenous Papuan society, the ongoing support they receive from the military and the latest violent incident raise the specter of the type of Kopassus-organized anti-independence militia violence previously seen at the peak of the brutal repression of East Timor’s struggle to secede from Indonesia.

The escalation in intimidation, manipulation and repression being organized by the state security forces sends an ominous signal of Jakarta’s unwillingness to heed growing calls to resolve the political conflict in Papua through peaceful dialogue. The latest attack against DAP comes on the heels of unprecedented widespread mass mobilization, with a wide coalition of Papuan groups uniting to reject Jakarta’s Special Autonomy package, demanding a referendum on independence, internationally mediated dialogue, the closing of the US-owned Freeport MacMoran gold and copper mine, and a halt to the transmigration that threatens to reduce Papuans to an indigenous minority. Mass rallies in all the main towns of Papua have been met with repression and threats from security forces. While Papuan activists such as Filep Karma, Buchtar Tabuni and Victor Yeimo continue to be imprisoned for organizing rallies calling for self-determination, the recent murder of Papuan journalist Ardiansyah Matra’is has extended the climate of intimidation to the press, making it even more difficult to access critical coverage of unfolding events in Papua.

Meanwhile, in the Puncak Jaya region near Wamena, police and military units continue to carry out harsh collective punishment against local communities suspected of supporting the poorly-armed OPM units operating out of remote mountain strongholds. Calls by Papuan human rights advocates for the state forces to cease their punitive operations have been met with disregard and intimidation, with the outspoken church leader Socrates Sofyan Yoman summoned for interrogation regarding his criticism of police action. In the face of such threats, DAP leaders have shown no intention of backing down from their community mobilization in defence of indigenous rights and livelihoods. The international community has an important role to play in pressuring the Indonesian security forces and their Western backers to withhold from violent repression of Papuan activists.

To contact the head of regional police in Wamena and to urge him to stop intimidating DAP, please call Kapolres Jayawijaya, GD S. Jaya at (+62) 8123881989.

An Indonesian-language message to be conveyed could be:

“Kami minta Polres segera hentikan tindakan represif terhadap Dewan Adat Papua di Wamena. Terima kasih.”

(Translation: “We ask Regional Police to stop repressive actions against DAP in Wamena. Thank you.”)

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: End criminalization of peaceful political activities in Maluku

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL
Public statement

AI Index: ASA 21/017/2010
19 August 2010

INDONESIA: End criminalization of peaceful political activities in Maluku

The decision to charge at least 22 political activists in Maluku for “rebellion” once again highlights the failure of the Indonesian government to distinguish between armed groups and peaceful political activists. Amnesty International urges the Indonesian government to release immediately and unconditionally the activists, who are all men, if they have been arrested solely for their peaceful political activities.

On 13 August 2010 the Maluku police announced that they were planning to charge the political activists with “rebellion” against the state (makar) under Articles 106 and 110 of Indonesia’s Criminal Code (KUHP, Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana). The police pointed to evidence which included possession of dozens of “Benang Raja” flags, a symbol of the South Maluku independence; Republic of South Maluku (RMS) membership cards; and photos and stickers of the independence flag.

According to local sources, the activists were planning to use the visit of Indonesia’s President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, to Maluku in early August as an opportunity to disseminate materials related to alleged human rights violations there, including posters calling for the release of political prisoners in Maluku arrested for their peaceful political activism.

Amnesty International is also concerned about their safety in custody, as detained political activists are known to have been tortured and ill-treated in Maluku. The authorities must ensure that the men are allowed access to legal counsel of their choosing, their families and any medical treatment that they may require.

Background

The Republic of South Maluku (RMS), an armed pro-independence movement, officially ended in Maluku with the execution of its leader by the Indonesian authorities in 1966. However, some villagers continue to raise the “Benang Raja” flag there as a peaceful political act of protest against the central government.

Amnesty International has documented dozens of arrests in past years of political activists who have peacefully called for independence, particularly in areas where there has been a history of pro-independence movements such as Maluku and Papua.

Amnesty International takes no position whatsoever on the political status of any province of Indonesia, including calls for independence. However the organization believes that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to peacefully advocate referendums, independence or other political solutions.

The rights to free expression, opinion and peaceful assembly are guaranteed under the Indonesian Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Indonesia is a state party. While the Indonesian government has the duty and the right to protect life and to maintain public order within its jurisdiction, it must ensure that any restrictions to freedoms of expression and peaceful assembly are no more than is permitted under international human rights law.

In June 2007, 22 political activists in Maluku province were arrested for unfurling the “Benang Raja” flag while performing a traditional “Cakalele” dance in front of the President. After their performance, the police, particularly the anti-terrorist unit Detachment-88, detained all 22 of the dancers. They were tortured or otherwise ill-treated, charged with “rebellion” under Articles 106 and 110 of the Indonesia Criminal Code and are serving sentences of between seven and 20 years’ imprisonment. Amnesty International considers them to be prisoners of conscience. A twenty-third dancer, also a prisoner of conscience, was arrested in June 2008 and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment in March 2009.

ENDS/

Public Document
****************************************
For more information please contact Amnesty International’s press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566 or press@amnesty.org

Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW, http://www.amnesty.org
For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

—

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑