Tag: Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono

HRW: Indonesia: Hold Abusers From Military Accountable

Human Rights Watch logo
Image via Wikipedia

Human Rights Watch (New York)

January 25, 2011

For Immediate Release

Indonesia: Hold Abusers From Military Accountable

More Than 100 Political Prisoners Held for Protesting Peacefully

(New York, January 25, 2011) – The Indonesian government should ensure
that soldiers responsible for abuses are appropriately prosecuted and
punished, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2011. The
January 24, 2011 verdict in a Papua military tribunal of eight to ten
months imprisonment for soldiers who engaged in torture was woefully
inadequate, Human Rights Watch said.

The 649-page report, Human Rights Watch’s 21st annual review of human
rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights
trends in more than 90 countries and territories worldwide. Over the
past 12 years, Indonesia, the report says, has made great strides in
becoming a stable, democratic country with a strong civil society and
independent media, but serious human rights concerns remain.

“Senior officials must both talk the talk and walk the walk on human
rights,” said Elaine Pearson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights
Watch. “The military should stop shielding its officers from
prosecution, and the government needs to hold abusers accountable.”

In July 2010, the US government lifted its ban on military assistance
to Kopassus, Indonesia’s elite special forces, despite continuing
concerns about its human rights record. Strong evidence of security
force involvement in torture emerged in 2010. Defense Minister Purnomo
Yusgiantoro pledged to suspend soldiers credibly accused of serious
human rights abuses, to discharge those convicted of abuse, and to
cooperate with their prosecution. But only a handful of cases made it
to military tribunals, and the charges did not reflect the gravity of
the abuses committed.

In October, a 10-minute cell phone video came to light that showed
Indonesian soldiers interrogating and brutally torturing two Papuan
men, Tunaliwor Kiwo and Telangga Gire. In the video, Kiwo screams as a
piece of burning wood is repeatedly jabbed at his genitals. After
pressure from foreign governments, the military finally held a
tribunal in Jayapura, Papua, in January. But it is only tried three of
six soldiers in the video – Second Sgt. Irwan Rizkiyanto, First Pvt.
Jackson Agu, and First Pvt. Thamrin Mahamiri of the Army’s Strategic
and Reserve Command (Kostrad) 753rd battalion – on military
discipline charges, rather than for torture. The three were sentenced
to ten months, nine months, and eight months respectively. Military
prosecutors only sought sentences of up to 12 months rather than the
maximum 30 months as allowed under the military criminal code.

Another torture case captured on video in 2010 involved several
soldiers kicking and beating villagers in Papua. Four soldiers from
the same Kostrad 753rd battalion were tried on military disciplinary
grounds and were sentenced only to five to seven months in prison. The
convictions are on appeal before the Surabaya high military tribunal.

These two cases were unusual in that the ill-treatment was captured on
video, but for years Human Rights Watch has documented serious human
rights violations in Papua for which soldiers have never been held to
account. Human Rights Watch called on the US to publicly clarify its
relationship with the Kostrad 753rd battalion and the individuals
involved in this incident, in order to ensure compliance with the
Leahy law.

“Rather than cooperating with civilian authorities and suspending the
soldiers involved as soon as the video appeared, the Indonesian
government has dragged its feet and reluctantly done the bare minimum
to try and make this go away,” said Pearson. “This is not the new and
improved army that the defense minister promised, but the same old
military impunity we’ve seen for decades in Indonesia.”

The government did little to curb attacks and discrimination against
religious, sexual, and ethnic minorities during 2010. On several
occasions, militant Islamic groups mobilized large groups of private
citizens and attacked places of worship of religious minorities.
Police frequently failed to arrest the perpetrators of the violence.

While Indonesia has vibrant media, throughout 2010 Indonesian
authorities invoked harsh laws to prosecute individuals who raised
controversial issues, chilling peaceful expression. Indonesia’s
criminal libel, slander, and “insult” laws prohibit deliberately
“insulting” a public official and intentionally publicizing statements
that harm another person’s reputation, even if those statements are
true. For instance, in early 2010, Tukijo, a farmer from Yogyakarta,
was sentenced to six months’ probation and a three-month suspended
prison sentence for criminal defamation after he argued with a local
official regarding a land assessment.

The government has imprisoned more than 100 activists from the
Moluccas and Papua for rebellion for peacefully voicing political
views, holding demonstrations, and raising separatist flags. In
August, the authorities arrested 21 Southern Moluccas activists in
Ambon and Saparua and charged them with treason for planning to fly
balloons and Southern Moluccas Republic flags during a visit by
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.

The country’s political prisoners include Filep Karma, 51, a Papuan
civil servant imprisoned for organizing a Papuan independence rally on
December 1, 2004, and Buchtar Tabuni, 31, a leader of the West Papua
National Committee, a Papuan independence organization that has grown
more radical since his imprisonment.

Government restrictions on access to Papua by foreign human rights
monitors and journalists imposed when Indonesia took over Papua in
1969 remained in place in 2010.

“By keeping the foreign media and rights organizations out of Papua,
the Indonesian government is all but admitting that serious abuses
persist,” Pearson said. “Ending those restrictions would be a first
step in reversing Papua’s downward spiral.”

To read Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2011 chapter on Indonesia,
please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011/indonesia

To read the Human Rights Watch World Report 2011, please visit:
http://www.hrw.org/en/world-report-2011

For more information, please contact:
In Perth, Elaine Pearson (English): +61-415-489-428 (mobile)
In Washington, DC, Sophie Richardson (English, Mandarin):
+1-917-721-7473 (mobile)
In Jakarta, Andreas Harsono (English, Bahasa Indonesia):
+62-815-950-9000 (mobile)

Related Articles
1

WPAT/ETAN: Light Sentences for Rights Violators Spark Calls for Suspension of Aid to Abusive and Unaccountable Indonesian Military

Light Sentences for Rights Violators Spark Calls for Suspension of Aid to Abusive and Unaccountable Indonesian Military

Contact: Ed McWilliams (WPAT), +1-575-648-2078
Paul Barber (TAPOL) +44 1420 80153 or +44 774 730 1739
John M. Miller (ETAN) +1-917-690-4391

The West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT), East and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and TAPOL condemn the Indonesian government’s failure to hold Indonesian military personnel responsible for the grave crime of torture of two Papuans. The torture was revealed in a video posted online in October 2010 shocked the international community ( http://www.etan.org/news/2010/10video.htm). Rather than try the perpetrators before a civilian court the Indonesian government allowed the Indonesian military to try the soldiers in a military court. On January 24, the Military Court in Papua sentenced three soldiers to minimal sentences of eight to 10 months imprisonment for the minor procedural offense of disobeying orders.

The Indonesian Government’s refusal to prosecute the perpetrators in a civilian court and the failure to charge them with serious criminal offences commensurate with the violence inflicted on the victims reflect a longstanding pattern where security force personnel who commit heinous crimes against Papuans are not inadequately punished, if they are punished at all. For example, the special forces (Kopassus) personnel convicted by a military court for the torture-murder of the leading Papuan political figure, Theys Eluay, in 2001 similarly received sentences not commensurate with the crime. They were lauded publicly by a leading Indonesian military figure as “heroes.”

Unfortunately, Indonesia President’s Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in pre-sentencing public remarks described the torture, which included the burning of the genitals of a Papuan man with a stick pulled from the fire, as “only a minor incident.” This dismissal of the seriousness of the crime reinforces a pattern of impunity for security personnel.

WPAT, ETAN and TAPOL remain concerned that Indonesia has refused to make torture a specific offence under Indonesian criminal law, notwithstanding Indonesia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture which it signed in 1985 and ratified in 1998. We urge Indonesia to do so.

Indonesian military personnel, especially those operating in West Papua, which has seen the worst security forces abuse over the past decade, continue to perpetrate torture, rape, extrajudicial killings and other well documented abuses in part because they are aware they will never be effectively prosecuted for these crimes. By refusing to prosecute military offenders to the full extend of the law in civilian courts the Indonesian government is complicit in the military’s continuing abuses.

The impunity long enjoyed by Indonesian security personnel for their criminal behavior stands in stark contrast to the severe sentences meted out to Papuans who assemble peacefully to protest decades of Indonesian government repression and the denial of essential services to the Papuan people. Dozens of Papuans have been imprisoned for years where, as described by UN reports, these peaceful dissenters endure health and life threatening treatment and conditions. Amnesty International and other reputable human rights organizations have identified many as “prisoners of conscience.”

Government restrictions on travel to and within West Papua have long impeded the ability of the international community to monitor human rights and other developments. Indonesian security and intelligence forces within West Papua routinely shadow and obstruct the movement of the few international journalists and even diplomats who do manage to enter West Papua. Papuans who speak to these observers are often threatened and harassed.

The U.S. and other governments should act in a substantive way to end the continued abuses by Indonesian security forces against Papuans. The U.S., in particular, should exercise its significant leverage by suspending its extensive and expanding military assistance programs for Indonesia pending real reform of the Indonesian military. This reform should, at minimum, include an end to human rights violations by Indonesian military personnel, as well as effective prosecution in civilian courts of military personnel who perpetrate abuses and with sentencing commensurate with the crimes. The U.S. should also make any resumption of military-to-military cooperation contingent on an end to Indonesian government restrictions on access to West Papua by independent journalists and other observers, as well as an end to Indonesian security and intelligence force intimidation of those Papuans peacefully advocating for their political and other human rights.

More generally, WPAT, ETAN and TAPOL appeal to the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom and the European Union to promptly and publicly register with the Indonesian government their deep concern over what is only this latest example of decades of failed justice in West Papua.

see also West Papua Report

U.S.-Indonesia Military Assistance

Related Articles
4

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

Wikileaks revelation – Indonesia threatened to derail a visit to Jakarta by President Barack Obama unless he overturned Kopassus ban

article in the Sydney Morning Herald – reprinted for media information only

NDONESIA threatened to derail a visit to Jakarta by President Barack Obama this year unless he overturned the US ban on training the controversial Kopassus army special forces.

Leaked US State Department cables reveal that the Indonesian President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, privately told the Americans that continuing the ban – introduced in 1999 because of Kopassus’s appalling human rights record – was the ”litmus test of the bilateral relationship” between the US and Indonesia.

Six months later the US agreed to resume ties with Kopassus, despite fierce criticism from some human rights groups and American politicians about Jakarta’s failure to hold officers to account for their role in atrocities.

The cables, made available exclusively to the Herald by WikiLeaks, detail US concerns about Indonesia’s failure to prosecute the military personnel responsible for murder and torture during the conflicts in East Timor and Aceh.

But they also reveal that US diplomats in Jakarta believed that Dr Yudhoyono’s demands should be met to ensure that Indonesia’s military and security services would protect US interests in the region, including co-operation in the fight against terrorism. It was also argued that closer military ties would encourage further reform of Indonesia’s military.

The Indonesian leader’s call to lift the Kopassus training ban is described in a January cable from the US embassy in Jakarta.

”President Yudhoyono (SBY) and other senior Indonesian officials have made it clear to us that SBY views the issue of Army Special Forces (KOPASSUS) training as a litmus test of the bilateral relationship and that he believes the … visit of President Obama will not be successful unless this issue is resolved in advance of the visit.”

The US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said in July that the US needed to renew links with Kopassus ”as a result of Indonesian military reforms over the past decade, the ongoing professionalisation of the TNI [army], and recent actions taken by the Ministry of Defence to address human rights issues”.

An expert on the Indonesian military, the Australian Defence Force Academy associate professor Clinton Fernandes, said the cables appeared to show that members of Congress such as Patrick Leahy – author of the 1999 ban on training with Kopassus – ”have not been told the real reason for Mr Obama’s decision, which was to provide photo opportunities for the President”.

”The decision to renew links shows contempt not only to the victims of gross human rights violations but to members of the US Congress,” Professor Fernandes said.

US diplomatic cables from the past four years reveal that Jakarta’s intense lobbying to lift the Kopassus ban was largely supported by the US embassy in

Jakarta, which cited the Australian military’s ties with Kopassus as a reason to lift the ban. An April 2007 cable says that ”our Australian counterparts often encourage us to resume training for Kopassus”.

But numerous cables also detail serious US concerns about resuming ties. In October 2007, the embassy told Washington that ”Indonesia has not prosecuted past human rights violations in any consistent manner.

”While we need to keep Indonesia mindful of the consequences of inaction on TNI accountability, Indonesia is unlikely to abandon its approach. We need therefore to encourage the Indonesian government to take alternative steps to demonstrate accountability.”

Another 2007 cable details US concern about the appearance at a Kopassus anniversary celebration of Tommy Suharto, the notorious son of the former president who served several years in prison for arranging the killing of a judge who convicted him of fraud.

In May 2008 the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, was briefed by US diplomats that ”the key impediment to expanded engagement remains the failure of the GOI [Indonesia] to press for accountability for past human rights abuses by security forces”.

The cable welcomes Indonesia’s continuing military reforms but noted they were not ”the same as putting generals behind bars for past human rights abuses”.

Last last year, about six months before the US lifted its Kopassus ban, a senior US official, Bill Burns, told Indonesian counterparts that ”engagement with Kopassus continued to be a difficult and complex issue, particularly as there remained many in Washington, including in Congress, with serious concerns about accountability for past Kopassus actions”.

But the US cables also reveal the Jakarta embassy’s efforts to water down the background screening that Indonesian military officers must undergo if they undertake training in the US.

The US embassy is also revealed in another cable as heavily playing down a report by Human Rights Watch last year that alleged Kopassus soldiers had committed recent human rights abuses in Papua. The embassy calls the report unbalanced and unconfirmed and says the abuses detailed do not appear to ”meet the standard of gross violation of human rights”.

0

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑