Tag: Otsus Gagal

The Indonesian Government: closing window for peace in West Papua

This article originally appeared at
Jason MacLeod

Just as Indonesia’s president Susilo Bambang Yudhuyono was being feted globally for being a democrat, the Indonesian government was entrenching Papua’s reputation as Indonesia’s last bastion of authoritarian military rule. Now Peace Brigades International has finally been forced out.

The latest casualty in the Indonesian Government’s efforts to seal off West Papua from international scrutiny is Peace Brigades International (PBI). In January this year the international non-government organisation was finally forced out of Indonesia. Since 1981 at the invitation of local people, PBI has been providing unarmed protection to human rights defenders at risk in conflict zones around the world. International accompaniment is literally the embodiment of the international community’s concern. The presence of internationals increases the cost of attacking human rights workers and expands the political space for local activists. All this is made possible by an elaborate communication network. PBI staff meet with local police and military personal as well as their superiors in regional and national capitals to let them know exactly who is being accompanied. This acts as a deterrent. The PBI volunteers are the eyes and ears of the international community, communicating the human rights situation on the ground to an international network of governments and civil society actors. It is a tried and tested approach that has worked in places as diverse as El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia, Haiti, Sri Lanka and Nepal.

Members of the PBI Indonesia Project were invited by Acehenese activists to accompany them through the darkest days of martial law. Acehenese civil society organisations like Flower Aceh and Koalisi HAM (the Human Rights Coalition) were able to continue their work because of PBI protective accompaniment. It gave local workers a sense that the international community cared about their situation and sent a clear message to the Indonesian army that they were being watched. PBIs protective accompaniment helped expand the space for peace in Aceh in the lead up to the historic Helsinki Peace Agreement. But in West Papua, home to Indonesia’s longest running separatist conflict, the world’s oldest international nonviolence organisation has finally met its match. After years of harassment from the Indonesian security forces the PBI Indonesia Project was closed down.

My colleagues and I helped set up the PBI West Papua project in 2003. I left the organisation in 2004 but kept in close contact with many of the organisers and staff members. One of the reasons PBI responded to an invitation from Papuan human rights defenders was because for years the Indonesian government has closed off access to West Papua to humanitarian organisations, journalists and even diplomats. It is important that Papua is opened up to the international community if human rights are to be addressed. But while the rest of Indonesia moved towards greater democracy, Papua slid back into an authoritarian backwater ruled by the Indonesian security forces as if it was their own private fiefdom. Since PBI established a presence in West Papua Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Dutch NGO CordAid and even the Red Cross have all been denied access. This level of hostility by a State to international scrutiny of a human rights situation is unusual. Even during the height of apartheid, the South African government permitted the Red Cross access to political prisoners. Not so in West Papua.

Prior to being forced out of West Papua, PBI was the only international human rights organisation with a permanent presence in Indonesia’s restive Pacific periphery. A group of long-term international volunteers based in Jayapura, the capital and in Wamena, in the troubled highlands, provided unarmed protection for Indonesian and Papuan human rights defenders and monitored the situation on the ground. PBI helped protect human rights defenders and lawyers trying to expose police brutality during the ‘Bloody Abepura’ trial in 2004. PBI also protected Papuan human rights defenders who were investigating the security forces after they cracked down on Papuans in the wake of the March 16 2006 blockade of the main road outside the University of Cendrawasih in Jayapura.

PBI is governed by a strict mandate. The organisation only supports unarmed actors, they do not take sides and they do not tell Papuans how they should run their struggle. Despite this the Indonesian government was petrified of PBI. I experienced this personally. When I was taken in for questioning in West Papua in 2007 after observing a demonstration in Papua, the very first question the Indonesian police intelligence agent asked me – even before enquiring whether I was a journalist or spy – was “Are you PBI?” By then I had left the organisation but it revealed the depth of the intelligence services concerns about PBI.

Almost from the moment PBI started work in West Papua the Indonesian government acted to restrict PBI’s access and ability to work. In 2009 the organisation was pressured to close the Wamena office in West Papua’s remote highlands, the scene of frequent human rights violations by the Indonesian military. PBI staff were refused permission to work as the police and intelligence services launched an official investigation into the organisation’s status. National Indonesian staff started to receive threatening phone calls. They felt increasingly vulnerable.

By late 2009 all one-on-one protective accompaniment had ceased. In an effort to stay in Papua protective strategies were reduced to regular check-in calls with PBI clients who felt threatened by state security forces. Then on 30 July 2010 Ardiansyah Matra’is’s naked, handcuffed body was found in the River Gudang Arang. His arm had been tied to a tree to prevent his body from floating downstream. Matra’is was a journalist working for Papua’s only national independent paper, Jubi. Matra’is had been critical of illegal logging operations run by the Indonesian military in Merauke and had taken photos of their activities. Matra’is was also a PBI client. His murder was the first time in Indonesia that a current PBI client had been killed.

The writing was on the wall: PBI was no longer making space for peace in Papua. In fact the opposite was happening. The Indonesian government was closing space for peace in Papua, and PBI appeared powerless to halt the slide into greater military impunity. Just as Indonesia’s president Susilo Bambang Yudhuyono was being feted globally for being a democrat, the Indonesian government was entrenching Papua’s reputation as Indonesia’s last bastion of authoritarian military rule.

But the Indonesian government’s restriction of access to West Papua is not just confined to grassroots international nonviolence organisations. Jakarta is even willing to snub the US government. In late 2010 the US Ambassador, Scott Marciel asked the Indonesian government if staff from the Embassy could observe the trial of three soldiers involved in torturing Papuan civilians. The torture, which including burning a man’s genitals with a stick, was filmed on a mobile phone camera and leaked to transnational human rights networks. When the footage was uploaded on to YouTube and featured on domestic and international news networks it generated massive moral outrage not just internationally but inside Indonesia as well. When the trial went ahead last month, Mr. Marciel was notified by the Indonesian government only 24 hours beforehand, not enough time to apply for a surat jalan, a letter of permission to travel to West Papua required by the Indonesian government. It was not an official denial from the Indonesian government but it may as well have been.

The Indonesian government is blocking access for all those who want to shine a light into West Papua. The problem for the Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhuyono is that he has allowed the Indonesian intelligence services to dominate decision-making processes in West Papua. The intelligence services determine who gets access into West Papua and who does not. They are the ones who assess the applications of foreign NGOs, journalists and even diplomats who want to travel to West Papua. Access to West Papua should be subjected to the rule of law and not to surveillance principles. If democracy and rule of law was present in West Papua, the surat jalan regime would be abolished altogether.

The Indonesian government cannot have it both ways. The human rights situation in West Papua cannot be fine while at the same time the Indonesian government and its intelligence and security forces insist the territory is off limits to foreigners. Either human rights are respected in West Papua or they are not. The closure of PBI in Indonesia only sharpens the international community’s perception that the Indonesian government has something to hide in West Papua.

Jason MacLeod worked for the PBI Indonesia Project from 2000 to 2004. He teaches civil resistance at the University of Queensland.
Related Articles
4

Members of new MRP urged to resign

JUBI, 13 March 2011

The chairman of the West Papua Forum of Democracy (FORDEM), Salmon Yumame, has declared that the leaders of the MRP – Majelis Rakyat Papua – Papuan People’s Assembly – failed to have the courage to acknowledge to the public the mistakes made by the MRP in their commitment to the Papuan people. He accused them of being ‘banci’ or ‘perverts’ for misleading the people.

He said it was highly regrettable that the members of the MRP who had, together with the Papuan people, declared their firm rejection of the Special Autonomy Law 21/2001 which included the creation of the MRP, yet had allowed themselves to be nominated for membership of the second MRP. They had failed to have the courage to withdraw their names, so that the aspirations of the Papuan people could be comprehensively raised with the central government.

He expressed the hope that those who had already been chosen to become members of the MRP and were now waiting to be sworn in would withdraw and would, along with the Papuan people, demand that the central government respond to the eleven recommendations adopted in June 2010.

The recommendations were handed over to the Papuan Provincial
Legislative Assembly, the DPRP. He said that all the problems confronting the Papuan people were contained in those eleven
recommendations.

Salmon said that FORDEM will continue to organise peaceful actions,
press conferences and issue statements to express the aspirations of the Papuan people.

In June last year, the MRP, along with other components of the Papuan people, held a grand consultation which had resulted in the adoption of he 11 recommendations, which included calling for Freeport Indonesia to close down, for a dialogue between the Indonesian government and the Papuan people mediated by a neutral, third party, for the rejection of Special Autonomy and for a referendum.

2

Papuan churches call for dialogue mediated by third party

Bintang Papua, 11 March 2011

The leaders of a number of churches in Papua have called on the central government to hold a dialogue with indigenous Papuans, stressing that it should be mediated by a neutral third party and held without conditions.

A press release issued by Rev. Benny Giay of the KINGMI Church, Rev
Socratez Sofyan Yoman of the Alliance of Baptist Churches in Papua and the deputy chairman of the GKI Synod, Drs Elly D. Doirebo said:

We church leaders in Papua hereby announce to our congregations and to the general public that we have informed the central government about our rejection of OTSUS (Special Autonomy law) for two consecutive weeks (13-18 February and 28 Feb-3 March). We need to convey a number of important facts as follows:

First, the failure of OTSUS has been acknowledged not only by the
Papuan people but also by the executive and legislature of the central
government, as well as by foreign diplomats and civil society figures
who we met in Indonesia who have been paying close attention to the
development of the Papuan people.

A number of government functionaries who we met at the centre have
blamed government leaders in the Land of Papua as being responsible for the failure of OTSUS.

We do not believe that this is true. The failure of OTSUS reflects the
lack of political will and seriousness on the part of the central
government to do anything to promote the development of the Papuan
people. We made this clear in the Theological Declaration of Papuan
Churches on 26 January 2011 when we said that the central government has failed to promote the development and welfare of the indigenous Papuan people.

Second, bearing in mind that all sides recognise that OTSUS has failed, we continue to urge the government at the centre as well as in the Land of Papua to immediately announce that the swearing in of a second-term MRP will be abandoned because it lacks aspiration and has no firm legal basis. We regard the efforts now being made by the central and regional governments to set up a second-term MRP as arrogant and as a move to force through their will which can only intensify the conflicts between the Papuan people and the Indonesian Government.

Third, we continue to be guided by the people of the Lord who continue to urge the Indonesian government to hold a dialogue with the Papuan people facilitated by a neutral third party, without conditions.

We are well aware that the government of President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono was successful in the dialogue it held with the Acehnese
people and that the same can be achieved with the Papuan people.

Dialogue is the most dignified, peaceful and democratic way which has
been widely accepted by the international community as the model for the resolution of conflicts that have occurred in other parts of the country.

Fourth, we reject the creation of UP4B, the Unit for Accelerating
Development in Papua and West Papua, as well as all talk about
‘Constructive Communications’, the aim of which is to conceal the
failure of OTSUS and to obscure the Papuan people’s demand for dialogue.

There should be prior consultation with the Papuan people about all
measures taken by the state for Papua which should be the result of
agreement between the government and the Papuan people.

Fifth, We reject all acts of intimidation and violence perpetrated by
the state in order to silence freedom of expression and democracy in the Land of Papua, such as the stabbing of the journalist Banjir Ambarita.

We therefore urge the police to carry out a thorough investigation of
that stabbing incident and to proceed with the case through legal
channels, in order to give the victim as well as the community in
general in the Land of Papua a sense of peace and justice.

8

Sokrates Yoman launches book titled ‘OPM’

JUBI, 12 March 2011

The Rev. Sokratez Sofyan Yoman has launched a new book titled: Otonomi, Pemekaran dan Merdeka [OPM] – Autonomy, Division and Independence. The 136-page book bears a sub-title: ‘Time to Speak the Truth in the Land of Papua’.

Speaking at the launch, the author, who heads the Alliance of Baptist
Churches in Papua, he said that he had taken the decision to write the
book as a calling from God. He said that when he meets his Maker and is asked what he has done and whether he should go to heaven or to hell, he would accept whatever would happen to him.

The book will cost Rp. 30,000 a copy but the author has decided not to sell it through the bookshops. ‘I will ask students to sell it so that
they can earn something from the profit they make selling it.’

Speaking at the launch of the book, Herman Awom said that the
significance of the book could be judged by the fact that past books of his have all been banned.

‘Why are his books banned by the Attorney-General? Because they speak about the experiences of the Papuan people, about their history, about the failure to uphold human rights in Papua and about the use of violence in Papua.’

Herman Awom said that this book was a way for Rev Yoman to deliver his sermons; not all the churches were willing to write in the way that he does. The title of the book in bahasa can be abbreviated to OPM.

0

FYI Open letter to Vice -President Boediono ( who is visiting Australia) concerning human rights and political prisoners in West Papua

Australia West Papua Association (Sydney)
PO Box 28, Spit Junction, Sydney, Australia 2088
Ph/fax 61.2.99601698 email: bunyip@bigpond.net.au

Open letter to Vice -President Boediono

Vice -President Boediono,
C/- Indonesian Consulate
Perth , Western Australia

9 March 2011

Dear Vice -President Boediono,

On behalf of the Australia West Papua Association (Sydney), I am writing to you concerning the human rights situation in West Papua[1].

We are concerned that the human rights situation in West Papua has continued to deteriorate in the past year. 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.

A number of military operation also took place in the Puncak Jaya region in the past year and these operations leave the local people traumatised and in fear for their lives. Security forces conduct regular sweeps in the area to pursue members of the Free Papua Movement (OPM) and many reports have pointed out that the security forces have great difficulty distinguishing between what they term separatists and the general public. 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. In September 2010 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.

AWPA is also concerned about the large number of political prisoners in West Papua, the majority jailed merely because the were involved in peaceful demonstrations where their national flag, the Morning Star was raised.

In July 2007, Indonesia’s Constitutional Court declared unconstitutional articles 154 and 155 of Indonesia’s Criminal Code, commonly known as the “hate sowing” (Haatzai Artikelen) offenses. Articles 154 and 155 criminalized “public expression of feelings of hostility, hatred or contempt toward the government” and prohibited “the expression of such feelings or views through the public media.” These articles have been used to target activists, students, and human rights defenders to try and silence political discussion and limit free expression in Indonesia.

A series of articles from 1999 to 2002 refer to the Human Rights Bill of 1999 . The law concerning protection of human rights of political prisoners is referred to in Article 4 of Law 39 in the Indonesian Constitution in 1999. In that same Law 39 in Article 6 , paras 1 and 2 particular mention is made of protection of rights of Indigenous people, including land rights.

Republic of Indonesia legislation number 39 of 1999 concerning human rights
Article 4
The right to life, the right to not to be tortured, the right to freedom of the individual, to freedom of thought and conscience, the right not to be enslaved, the right to be acknowledged as an individual before the law, and the right not to be prosecuted retroactively under the law are human rights that cannot be diminished under any circumstances whatsoever.
Article 6
(1) In the interests of upholding human rights, the differences and needs of indigenous peoples must be taken into consideration and protected by the law, the public and the Government.
(2) The cultural identity of indigenous peoples, including indigenous land rights, must be upheld, in accordance with the development of the times.

AWPA urges the Indonesian Government to release all West Papuan political prisoners imprisoned under these laws (contrary to Indonesia’s constitution) as a sign of good faith to the West Papuan people.

Yours sincerely

Joe Collins
Secretary
AWPA (Sydney)

[1] AWPA (Sydney) uses the name “West Papua” to refer to the whole of the western half of the Island of New Guinea

2

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑