Tag Archives: Tripartite Dialogue

Killing Papuan Fighter will not solve the problem, says Indonesian MP

Tabloid JUBI
8 April 2013
A Papuan member of the Indonesian Parliament, Diaz Gwijannge said that he  cannot agree with the decision to place the OPM leader, Goliath Tabuni on the WANTED list. Killing Papuan leaders can never solve the problem, he said.’I cannot agree with the decision to place Goliath Tabuni on the wanted list so that he can be killed because this will not solve the problem.’

‘A number of Papuan fighters for independence have been killed, such as Theys Eluay, Kelly Kwalik and Mako Tabuni have been killed but this has solved nothing. Even though that have died, the problem about Papuan  independence still continues,’ he said.

No-one has been forcing the Papuan people to call for independence. This is the political ideology of the Papuan people. Even if those who are fighting for independence are killed, the independence struggle will continue,’ he said. ‘There should be dialogue or whatever you want to call it because the solution must be sought by political means.’

”Dont think that we can be deceived. Just see what happened in Timor-Leste. If such things continue, people will call this an act of genocide in Papua. I think that the chief of police should be careful.  Dont  just accuse people and put them on the WANTED list. There are procedures which must be used which should guarantee people’s right to life. Only God himself can take someone’s life, not another human being,’ he said.

Gwijannge explained “The solution must be comprehensive not just partial, especially considering that the indigenous Papuan people have taken the ethical path to find a solution.  The Papuan Peace Network is pressing for dialogue and there needs to be a response to that from the Indonesian Government, by involving the OPM in dialogue,” he said.

“Aceh and Papua are very much the same, there is no difference between then. It is indeed true that GAM’s structure was very well organised. So why is it that the Acehnese conflict was resolved by the Helsinki agreement, but this is not possible for Papua? This means that there is discrimination between the two.”

“Moreover there is inconsistency in the Government’s policy  towards Papua. They were granted OTSUS – Special Autonomy – but there has been great inconsistency in its implementation. The central government has also divided the territory which has frequently led to conflicts between the Papuan people themselves.”

‘The two sides must sit down together for talks. And if necessary a third party should be involved, as was the case with GAM. Why can’t Papua be handled in the same way? It would appear that the Indonesian government is not serious about finding a solution with the result that acts of violence continue to occur,” said Gwijannge.

[Translated by TAPOL]

 

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.

Institute of Papuan Intellectuals calls for a referendum

Bintang Papua, 7 September 2010

[Abridged in translation]

The Central Council of the Institute of Intellectuls in the Land of
Papua has issued a statement which rejects any move to Revise and
Evaluate Special Autonomy. They said that the Special Autonomy Law – OTSUS – was adopted nine years ago but, they asked, what has the
government done in all that time?

When it was adopted, OTSUS was described as being an alternative move by the central government in response to the wishes of the indigenous people to secede from the Indonesian Republic. This was because of the huge disparity in many spheres, such as welfare, education, economic activities,.health, infrastructure and human rights violations.

In fact, OTSUS was introduced by the Indonesian government in order to ensure that West Papua remains with the Republic of Indonesia.

Implementation of the law should have involved the introducetion of
special regulations – Perdasus and Perdasi – but the central government along with officials of the two provinces, Papua and West Papua have turned OTSUS into a disaster for the people of the Land of Papua. So what can the central government be proud of achieving in its wish to revise and evaluate OTSUS?

The statement said in conclusion:

The Institute of Intellectuals of the Land of Papua and its members
throughout Papua, in other parts of Indonesia and abroad, hereby declare:

1. We reject any revision of OTSUS and any evaluation of the
implementation of OTSUS.

2.We call for a Referendum.

3. We call on the UN to facilitate the process for a referendum in West
Papua.

4. We call on the UN to take action to uphold the rights of the indigenous people of West Papua.

Signed by:

Pares L. Wenda, Chairman for Politics, Law and Human Rights

Natalsen Basna, General Chairman