Tag: west papua media alerts

Violent Tactics Backfire In Papua

1 Nov 2011

By Alex Rayfield

waiting

The tough response of the Indonesia armed forces to the Third Papuan People’s congress has strengthened calls for freedom. NM’s West Papua correspondent Alex Rayfield reviews the fallout

If the Indonesian police and military thought shooting live ammunition into a mass gathering of unarmed Papuans would somehow dampen dissent and endear them to Jakarta’s continued rule, they were mistaken. Indiscriminate repression meted out against those gathered at the Third Papuan People’s congress is showing signs of having the opposite effect: widening the circle of dissent inside West Papua and igniting international support outside.

First the Indonesian military and police denied they shot dead peaceful protesters. But that was too difficult to sustain. New Matilda received text messages as soon as the shooting started which were followed by urgent phone calls. Gunfire could be heard in the background.

When it became clear that covering up the shooting would not wash, the Indonesian Chief of Army in West Papua, Erfi Triassunu, admitted opening fire but claimed his troops only fired warning shots. He insisted no one had been hurt. Some of the international media bought the story. With foreign journalists banned from West Papua, some media outlets went to the police and military for confirmation. This is in spite of the fact that West Papua Media, with their extensive network of citizen journalists and local stringers, broke the story, verified it and began filing reports about what happened within a few hours.

A few hours after the shooting, the Indonesian police in West Papua were telling journalists in Jakarta that an attempted coup d’état had taken place and that police had used force to defend the state. The Jayapura Chief of Police, Imam Setiawan, even went as far as saying that members of the Papuan Liberation Army had attacked the Congress.

Setiawan took this line again on Thursday 20 October. In an interview with Bintang Papua, a local Papuan daily, he outlined how he thought police should respond to a gathering of unarmed Papuans expressing their political opinion: “Whoever supports separatism or subversion activity, I will do the same as yesterday. I’ll finish them.”

The language used by Setiawan echoed hard-line nationalists in Jakarta. It follows a deadly trajectory. Cast the Papuans in the worst possible light. Label them as “separatists” — which in Indonesia is the worst kind of criminal, someone who is treasonous, dangerous and violent. From here it was only a short step to imply that those at the Third People’s Congress were using violence to try and seize control of the state. This narrative makes it sound like the police and military were taking evasive action to stop the Papuans storming the Bastille of Indonesian rule. This is pure fantasy.

Initially it was reported that police and the military raided the stage after Forkorus Yaboisembut and Edison Waromi (appointed as President and Prime Minister of the Federal State of West Papua respectively) declared independence. We now know that the attack did not happen until well after the three-day gathering had finished.

After the Declaration of Independence was read around 2.00pm local time, the Congress concluded. The leadership — Yaboisembut, Waromi, Dominikus Surabut, Helena Matuan and a few others left the field to rest in the nearby Sang Surya Catholic Friary in the grounds of the Fajar Timur Theological College where the Congress was being held. Those remaining on Taboria oval (Zaccheus Field) danced the Yospan, a traditional Papuan group dance.

The festivities continued for around 60-90 minutes. We don’t know exactly what the police, military and Brimob soldiers were doing between the time the Declaration was read out and the time the shooting started. Presumably they were discussing what to do. Most likely they consulted commanding officers locally and in Jakarta.

According to Yan Christian Waranussy, a prominent Papuan human rights lawyer, members of the security forces under the command of Police Chief Imam Setiawan arrested Edison Waromi as he drove out of the Fajar Timur grounds on Yakonde Street. Waranussy reports that the police pulled people out of the vehicle and started beating them before pushing them into a police van. Following the arrest of Waromi, Waranussy says the security forces starting firing their weapons into the crowd.

This occurred at around 3.30pm. One of the first killed was 25-year-old Daniel Kadepa, a student at Umel Mandiri Law School. According to those who knew him, Kapeda did not even attend the Congress. He was passing by when the security forces opened fire. Witnesses said that he died from gunshot wounds to the head and back after soldiers fired on him as he was running away.

Video footage obtained by EngageMedia and published by New Matilda shows people hiding in nearby buildings just after the police and military opened fire. In the background you can hear shooting. This is not automatic gunfire. They are single shots. Then there is a pause, followed by more shots. It is as if the shooter is walking around picking people off. There is very little background noise. No screaming or yelling, just an eerie silence … and gunshots.

According to Catholic clergy who witnessed the event, the police, Indonesian military and the the paramilitary Mobile Police Brigade continued discharging their weapons for approximately 25 minutes.

Eyewitnesses report that when the shooting started, Yaboisembut and Surabut were talking and relaxing in the Sang Surya Friary, a few metres from the oval. Then bullets smashed through the window. According to statements obtained by New Matilda people immediately hit the ground and began crawling to safety as the police indiscriminately fired live ammunition and canisters of tear gas into the buildings surrounding the oval.

According to statements obtained by New Matilda, police, military and Brimob personnel ransacked student dormitories, clergy residences and offices. One witness reported an Indonesian security officer yelling “Where are those idiot priests? Why do priests hide criminals?”

Those present also reported security personal using combat knives or bayonets and beating people with truncheons and rifles. At least 300 people were arrested and taken away in army and police trucks where they were detained overnight in the tennis courts at the police station.

We now know that three people were shot dead that day. They are Daniel Kapeda, Max Asa Yeuw, and Yakobus Samansabra. Two others, Matias Maidepa and Yacop Sabonsaba, were allegedly found dead behind the military headquarters in Abepura. According to the Indonesian military sources quoted in the local Papuan press, the victims had been stabbed. In addition, members of the Organising Committee of the Third Papuan Congress allege four other people died, all from gunshot wounds, two from Sorong and two from Wamena.

Six people are still in detention charged with rebellion. According to family members they have all been badly beaten. According to Human Rights Watch and KONTRAS Indonesia (the Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence) those still in detention are:

• Forkorus Yaboisembut, chairman of the Papua Customary Council, probably the most prominent pro-independence leader in Papua. When New Matilda interviewed him in West Papua in 2010 and again in 2011 he was regularly receiving death threats. A few people had even come forward and told the local press that they were offered new motorbikes and other inducements if they would help orchestrate a fatal “accident”.

• Edison Waromi, president of the West Papua National Authority. Edison Waromi’s daughter, Yane, was kidnapped and assaulted by the security forces in 2008.

• Dominikus Surabut, secretary of the Papuan Customary Council in La Pago region.

• Selpius Bobii, a social media activist, who organised the Papuan Congress. He initially eluded the police crackdown, but surrendered to police on October 20, accompanied by his lawyers and a Papuan journalist.

• August M. Sananay of the West Papua National Authority.

• Gat Wanda, a member of PETAPA (Defenders of the Land of Papua, an unarmed civilian defence group), charged with possessing a sharp weapon.

It will take some time before the immediate effect of the repression is made clear, but early signs suggest the use of extreme and deadly violence against nonviolent activists has enlarged the circle of dissent inside West Papua and ignited international support outside.

Certainly Church leaders — both Catholic and Protestant — have expressed their outrage. Neles Tebay, a key Papuan intellectual, defended the role of clergy who provided humanitarian protection for those seeking safety. Tebay, who also gave permission for the Committee to hold the Congress in the Theological College grounds, was quoted as saying that he “rejects the use of all kinds of repression in dealing with the problems. Using violence undermines the dignity of all concerned, above all the dignity of the victims as well as the perpetrators.”

Tebay has repeated his call “for all people of goodwill to jointly press for dialogue, for the sake of peace in Papua”.

Political representatives of the Papuan Provincial Parliament, a group that until now has sided with the government on matters of national security, expressed their dismay. Bintang Papua reported that Yan Mandenas, chairman of the Pikiran Rakyat Group in the Provincial Parliament said “the actions of the security forces in dispersing the Congress exceeded all bounds and … were in violation of the law”.

Similar views were expressed by Ruben Magay, chairman of Commission A on Politics and Law of the Provincial Parliament who reportedly urged the chief of police to withdraw his men because the Congress was already over. Magay said that what happened was clearly “a violation” and that “no one was fighting back”.

And while a large group of hard-line nationalists in Jakarta applauded or condoned police and military action, Effendy Choirie and Lily Chadidjah Wahid, both members of House of Representatives Commission I on information, defense and foreign affairs in Jakarta, warned the government that the mounting tension could lead to the province’s separation from Indonesia. In a clear rebuke of Papuan Police Chief Imam Setiawan, the two legislators added “that the government should not blame the Free Papua Movement (OPM) for the shooting but rather the security personnel in Papua”.

Internationally, things have gotten much worse for Jakarta.

United States Congressman Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin condemned the actions of the security forces. So too has Senator Richard Di Natale from the Australian Greens who has urged the Australian Government to suspend military ties with Indonesia. MP Catherine Delahunty from New Zealand has also called for the New Zealand Government to withdraw its training support for the Indonesian police. This is more than words. The United States, Australian and New Zealand Government all provide money, training and material aid to the Indonesian police and military. In this sense we are beginning to see the early signs of what could become an international withdrawal of legitimacy for continued Indonesian repression in West Papua.

Papuan calls for UN intervention won’t happen, at least not in the foreseeable future. And the movement internally still faces serious challenges. But the Congress, the Declaration of Independence and the subsequent shooting has realigned the political landscape. There are now three main political groups, the Congress, the Papuan Peace Network led by Neles Tebay who is calling for dialogue, and the West Papua National Committee who want the giant US/Australian Freeport Mine closed and a referendum on West Papua’s political status. At a fundamental level there is not a lot of difference between these positions. They all point to the need for a political solution to the Pacific’s longest running conflict.

The Indonesian political elite and security forces can no longer pretend that the problem in Papua is economic. Papuans want political freedoms. The Congress made that abundantly clear. It opened with raising the banned Morning Star flag and singing the banned West Papuan national anthem, Hai Tanah Ku, and closed with a Declaration of Independence.

And it wasn’t as if the military or police was unaware of this depth of feeling. When an open peace conference organised by the Papua Peace Network was held in Jayapura last July, Erfi Triassunu, the local Army Chief, took the podium. In attendance were 800 respected Papuan civil society leaders. Triassunu tried to get the audience — who were mostly Papuan — to chant “peace!” in response to his “Papua!”. But as soon as he called out “Papua!” the crowd responded as one with “Merdeka!” (freedom).

Now the Papuans’ cry for freedom is echoing around the world. And it is the Indonesian police, military and their nationalist political allies in Jakarta who are helping amplify it.

Related articles
9

800 arrested, many tortured after troops open fire on Papuan Congress

in partnership with newmatilda.com

STOP PRESS – AT time of publication, confirmed information that another victim, Melkias Kadepa has been found dead in the bushes, in Abepura, according to Matius Murib, the Chairperson of Papuan Human Right Committee in Jayapura.

Troops Open Fire On Papuan Gathering

By Alex Rayfield

arrests in west papua
Participants in the Third Papuan People’s Congress are arrested by Indonesian security forces.

The Indonesian military and police opened fire late yesterday on a gathering of West Papuan leaders. At least one person is believed to have been killed and hundreds have fled the capital

The Indonesian military and police started shooting at around 2:37pm West Papua time, yesterday 19 October. Information about what exactly transpired are still sketchy but at least one person was shot (believed dead), scores have been arrested, hundreds have fled to the hills and jungle surrounding the capital, and the capital is in a state of lockdown.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

A Papuan priest who was fleeing the shooting contacted New Matilda to report that an army truck passed him carrying Papuan participants who had been present at the Third Papua Congress. According to the witness they were “covered with blood” and had been “beaten and shot”.

The violence erupted at the conclusion of the Third Papuan Congress, a three-day gathering held at the Taboria oval (Zaccheus Field) in Abepura, during which Papuan leaders declared their independence from the Indonesian state.

As many as 20,000 West Papuans met, danced and debated how to achieve their civil and political rights. For three days the atmosphere had been tense. The venue was ringed by Armed Personnel Carriers, military trucks and Barracudas — a type of armed jeep favoured by the paramilitary police. Machine guns were trained on the participants and thousands of soldiers and paramilitary police armed with automatic weapons were present.

Papuan activists feared that the military and police would try to forcibly break up the peaceful gathering. But the Papuans were determined to have the congress.

One activist told New Matilda “maybe we will die but the congress will go on”. Continue it did. The banned “morning star” flag was flown and the banned national anthem was sung. By lunch time on the third day (19 October) Papuan activists, members of the organising committee and well connected church leaders heard that the police and military were going to use force to break up the congress.

By 2pm Jayapura time the Congress was concluding. Forkorus Yaboisembut, the Chair of the influential Customary Papaun Council was elected President and Edison Waromi was elected Prime Minister of the “West Papua Federal State”. The crowd was ecstatic. One senior tribal leader sent New Matilda the following message by SMS: “Kongres has been successful! No reaction from the military. God bless!”

The jubilation was premature.

Immediately after New Matilda received that SMS, Yaboisembut and Waromi read a declaration of independence. The police and military then opened fire and stormed the stage. As Forkorus Yaboisembut was being arrested, his personal bodyguards stepped in to protect him. A witness reports at least one person was then shot. According to an SMSNew Matilda received from Yaboisembut: “hundreds were surrounded, shot, beaten and then arrested”.

Prior to being arrested, Yaboisembut spoke to a journalist from Bintang Papua, a local Jayapura daily. Yaboisembut was reported as saying that the objective of the congress was to discuss the basic rights of the indigenous Papuan people and not to destroy the the republic of Indonesia.

“Although we will be discussing political rights, we respect the Indonesian government because our intention is not to destroy [the republic of Indonesia]. This is a matter of principle,” he said.

“What we are doing is to struggle for the rights of the indigenous Papuan people. This includes our basic right as a nation.”

Yaboisembut knows what he is talking about. He recently wrote a book about international law, self-determination and the right to secession — a right upheld by the international community most recently in South Sudan and before that Kosovo.

Human Rights defenders in West Papua can confirm that in addition to Yaboisembut, Edison Waromi and his wife and child, Selfius Bobi (Chair of the organising committee), Agus Krar, Abraham Kareni, Yudit Kambuaya and Jan Piet Mirino were also arrested.

At the time of writing those arrested were being detained at the local Jayapura police station. Another source reports that Selfius Bobi has not been seen since. Staff fromWest Papua Media Alerts hold grave fears that he is being tortured.

Extreme violence has been used to break up a peaceful gathering.

This was the third time West Papuans have held a congress. The second congress was in 2000. It culminated in the election of the Papuan Presidium Council which collapsed in late 2001 after the Chair, Theys Hiyo Eluay, was assassinated by Kopassus, Indonesia’s Special Forces.

The first Papua Congress was held on 1 December 1961, a day West Papuans commemorate as their national day, and some 18 months before Indonesia occupied West Papua on 1 May, 1963.

Yesterday was the second time the Papuans declared independence from Indonesia. The first was by Seth Rumkorem on July 1 1976 at Markas Viktoria, a guerrilla base on the Papua New Guinea border.

Yaboisembut’s declaration of independence in front of thousands of Papuan people and thousands of heavily armed police is a clear escalation of the struggle for independence. It also illustrates Yaboisembut’s conviction that the struggle needs to be waged through an unarmed popular civilian uprising.

UPDATE 12.35pm:
This information was gathered by West Papua Media Alerts from local contacts. It has not been verified by New Matilda.

Two victims have been named: Martinus Siep was shot dead, and Pilatus Wetipo was shot in the leg and is now in hiding.

Eight truckloads of Congress delegates were taken into police custody. People arrested by the security forces are now missing.

A witness from Wamena has said: “While I was in hiding I saw with my own eyes in front of me nine people who tried to escape up the hill behind the catholic dormitories were shot dead and were taken away by security forces in Panser [armoured vehicle]. Until now I don’t know where they’ve been taken too”.

The security forces have raided Cendrawasi University in pursuit of two delegates from Serui who got shot in the leg and arm. Therefore, all students and delegates in Yawa dormitory have dispersed and are in hiding.

The security forces have also raided dormitories looking for the Congress committee, the Congress leadership and student leaders. Delegates from Biak are reporting that a lot of their representatives are still missing.

Selfius Bobi, who is chair of the Congress organising committee, is missing.

A priest who was hiding in the jungle behind the Congress venue witnessed security forces positioned in the bush shooting down to the venue below, and forces in armoured Panser and police trucks open fire, causing confusion and chaos among participants. He believed security forces had placed themselves behind bushes and were waiting for anyone who escaped up the hill so that they could shoot them and quickly throw them into the vehicles.


UPDATE 1.10PM:
This message was just sent to West Papua Media Alerts by Congress participant Djenggo Nubiri. It has been translated from Indonesian.

“Sister/brother, I’ve just left the police headquarters along with other students who have exams this morning. There are still around 800 detainees in the Jayapura Police Station at the moment. Yeboisembut was injured by the police, he is still being interrogated in a special room. Eduard Pariri, Mrs. Sroer, Kelly Pedai, Abraham Kareni, Nova Sroer, DAUD ABON (Governor of Yapen-Waropen and Mamberamo), Mr. Jacob Sroer and Elieser Awon (ex Free West Papua – OPM – member), Mama Sroer and there are still so many other activists, youths, students, petapa (?), mama-mama (older women), OPMand others. They are still being detained in the Jayapura Police Station’s tennis court since last night. The repressive and violent act by the authority has caused a lot of injuries to the people, some fractured their skulls, broke their legs, while others suffer serious injuries. We had to sign the letter stating we’ve committed criminal acts as they did not allow us to defend ourselves.”

more information as it becomes available. 

Related articles
17

West Papua new Pacific media black spot

Cartoon from the Pacific Journalism Review report. © Malcolm Evans 2011

Monday, October 17, 2011

  • Listen/Download: MP3 

MELBOURNE (Radio Australia’s Pacific Beat / Pacific Media Watch): A new report on Pacific media freedom says the most serious cases of media freedom violations in the Pacific in the past year occurred in West Papua.

The report by the Auckland-based Pacific Journalism Review says repression in the province has now also reached the news media.

It says violence against journalists in West Papua has replaced censorship in Fiji as the most urgent media freedom issue in the region.

Presenter: Geraldine Coutts
Speaker: Associate Professor David Robie, director, Pacific Media Centre

ROBIE: But there are very good networks of sources of information and there is also a major media  freedom organisation in Indonesia, the Alliance of Independent Journalists which has a very strong chapter in West Papua and feeds information very much to international media freedom organisations, because it’s not only Papuan journalists that face such repression, but it’s also Indonesian journalists working in the area.

COUTTS: Alright, can you just give us some examples of what’s actually happening, the conditions under which the journalists are now working?

ROBIE: Well, there was a big focus on the troubles in West Papua, in fact really since the early part of August and, of course, last week, at Freeport mine, there has been a shooting of protesters. The mine workers were protesting over the working conditions of the mine, but that was really a focus on the general sort of situation that journalists actually have to report on.

Our report largely dealt with the year which would normally have ended about July, but because of the major situation in West Papua at the time, we also included August. But essentially in the past year, there’ve been two killings of journalists, five abductions or attempted abductions, 18 assaults, including the stabbing of a journalist by two people on a motorbike and so on. And there have been repeated cases of intimidation and aggression against journalists and then, of course, there’s the general pattern of censorship by civil and military authorities.

In West Papua, not only the general sort of situation facing journalists, such as criminal libel, but there is a crime of makar, or subversion, of which is a concern for journalists too.

COUTTS: So that’s on a day-to-day basis and what about the public at large, are they similarly being affected?

ROBIE: Well yes, I mean that’s really a microcosm, if you like, of the broader situation. At the moment, there’s the third Papuan People’s Congress that just opened yesterday in Jayapura and there’s a general mood of dissension right through Papua.

COUTTS: And how did you conduct your research Dr. Robie?

ROBE: There is basically a network of people who have contributed to this report. Alex Perrottet, who is main co-author. He is Pacific Media Watch contributing editor. But we actually had quite a number of people that contributed to this report and they’re named in the report, including Nick Chesterfield, who is from the West Papuan Media network. He’s the editor there.

COUTTS: And the most recent incident was a couple of arrests by Indonesian authorities in Jayapura for being in possession of material that featured the banned West Papuan Morning Star flag of independence?

ROBIE: Yes, and that’s a constant sort of threat against all Papuans. In fact, I believe there’s been a call not to raise the Morning Star flag at this Papuan Congress this week, so it’ll be interesting to see what happens during that period.

COUTTS: Well, it’s a rather large report, West Papua obviously features. What countries did you look at?

ROBIE: Well, we looked at most of the Pacific region with the exception of the American territories, but I think it’s the most comprehensive report that’s actually been on media freedom in the Pacific. It was a 39 page report, but it’s focused largely on the Pacific Island Forum countries, including Australia and New Zealand, of course, but largely focusing on the island countries. But we also looked at the French territories, we looked at East Timor as well as West Papua. We made a particular feature of West Papua, although, of course, there are major sections in the report that deal elsewhere with Fiji, Vanuatu, in particular, that are ongoing freedom concerns.

COUTTS: And how did the French territories rate?

ROBIE: The most interesting thing there, of course, there’s been a development that’s been since the report and that’s the feature of Tahiti Presse, the state-funded sort of newsagency which is for the chop, in terms of budget cut backs and so on. But that’s quite a blow, not only for Tahiti, but also the rest of the Pacific, because the Tahiti Presse actually provided a very good English language service for the region and so that’s really going to hamper the coverage from that part of the Pacific.

In New Caledonia, it’s been more of an issue of the rearrangement of the French media laws and how that’s affecting the territories. But over the past year, there are no particular major incidents involving, say individuals or threats against individuals or such incidents.

So outside West Papua, of course, Fiji remains the overriding concern for the region.

COUTTS: When you look at media freedom, what were the premises, I mean what did you declare was media freedom and that which fell below that particular bar?

ROBIE: Well, we looked at quite a range of issues, we basically looked at areas of censorship, areas of danger and threat to individual journalists, we looked at the legal frameworks affecting all the territories, the report includes quite a chart doing a comparative study of all the territories in the region. We looked at areas such as criminal libel; and particular legal threats that journalists may face. We looked at institutional censorship and we looked at the passage of laws, such as freedom of information. Of course, the Cook Islands is the only Pacific Islands country that has freedom of information legislation, that came in 2009 and it hasn’t been working as well as it might, but at least it’s a chink or opening for the whole region. But in contrast, to say Australia, for example, where there’s been a whole host of reforms and the freedom of information laws that have been generally quite beneficial or in the process of making those changes. It’s been a slow process in the Pacific.

COUTTS: And also there’s the accusation by Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, that she doesn’t think that she’s getting a fair go from one of the media outlets here. Was that something that was included?

ROBIE: Not specifically that, but we did look at quite a lot of the legal changes in Australia and we also looked at the consequences of the phone hacking scandal in Britain, News of the World and with the inquiry that’s being set up in Australia. So we looked at those sort of patterns, we looked at individual arrests and the shield laws, all of those sort of issues were canvassed in Australia.

COUTTS: And because the reason I ask you to define what you determined was media freedom was because there are some countries, some of the smaller countries that the government’s have something to say if their press release aren’t published. So the media outlets have to do it whether they want to or not. Does that come across the path of media freedom or lack thereof?

ROBIE: Yes, well I mean and we’ve particularly looked at the dangers of Fiji, particularly the censorship that takes place since the media decree was imposed and what an extremely poor model that is for the whole region and very threatening to other countries, because let’s face it, we’ve had pressure on journalists, well ever since the 1987 coups, and politicians by and large around the Pacific don’t have a high opinion of the media and have a very poor understanding of the role of the media in any country that is a democracy. And so many politicians have actually looked rather with some admiration at what Fiji has done and would love to have the opportunity to do something similar. So the longer the censorship regime continues in Fiji, well, it’s really a cancer on media freedom for the whole region.

COUTTS: Well, you have a vested interest, of course, recent talk where the next PINA meeting might be held in Fiji, because PNG can’t host it. So I just wonder what that actually says about yourself who’ve been banned and kicked out, Sean Dorney, and Barbara Dreaver ? Three of the region’s senior journalists won’t be able to attend the meeting like that?

ROBIE: Well, I’ve never been banned. I’ve had more problems with the French authorities than the Pacific. I lived in Fiji for five years and was head of the journalism program there. But the point you’re making is actually a very serious one and I think it points to a major division among journalists and in the media industry itself about the role of Fiji and how Fiji should be dealt with. Of course there are those who argue that the Pacific Island News Association should have got out of Fiji long ago and set up somewhere else, where it can actually operate with relative freedom. But there are others who argue that well, “Hang on, we’ve got more chance of actually forcing some kind of change on the regime in Fiji by actually having contact and dialogue and having a chance to actually sort of reason”. And I don’t think those sorts of divisions have really been resolved. The plans for having this conference there in March, next year, I think are very fraught and a lot of dangers involved with this. It will make a mockery of such a conference if many people can’t come simply because they’re going to be barred by the regime.

COUTTS: Now just to wrap it up David. The 39-page report overall, what’s the state of censorship across the Pacific, is it a good or bad one?

ROBIE: Well, it’s a worrying one I’d say, it’s a worrying one, but the report does make a comparison, I guess, and this is where West Papua’s quite important. But you have to put things in context globally and when you look at countries like the Philippines, where journalists are murdered with impunity and you go back to the massacre back in November, 2009. In that sort of context, the Pacific’s not too bad. However, it needs to have a very vigilant campaign by advocacy groups and a constant watch, because essentially politicians are not very favourable with the media and they would like any opportunity to have a clamp down, so the more so the more that this is put under the spotlight, the better.

(cc) Creative Commons

Full Pacific media freedom report

Related articles
2

Komnas HAM is gathering data about the 15 arrests in Skyline

Bintang Papua. 8 September 2011Although thirteen of the fifteen Papuans who were arrested on 31 August have since been released, the National Human Rights Commission’s  (Komnas HAM) Papua branch is continuing to pay serious attention to what happened, said Mathius Murib, deputy chairman of the commission. ‘We have been paying close attention to what has happened from the start up to the present moment,’ he said.

‘The proper procedures were not followed and the people who were detained were subjected to mal-treatment, and what is even more disturbing is that a child of 7 or 8 years old was kidnapped at the same time,’ he said.

After receiving complaints from the families of the victims, Komnas HAM decided to investigate the case.’Since receiving these complaints we have been conducting investigations which are still on-going.’

Commenting on allegations by the KNPB – National Committee for West   Papua –  that the events in Papua that preceded the arrests had been deliberately set up, especially the incidents in Jayapura, he said that we would need to have evidence that this was true. ‘People can express their opinion about this but everything needs to be based on careful investigations which can be properly accounted for.’

‘We need to know who was responsible, what the motivation was and whether the incidents were deliberately set up or not.’ When asked whether the incidents were being comprehensively investigated, he said  he said that a number of incidents had occurred one after the other, almost daily, cases that need to be handled by the police.Moreover, some people were involved in several of the incidents. ‘Is this a matter for the police or for the NGOs or for the Komnas HAM? Whatever the case, they must be dealt with, and it is mainly the responsibility of the police to do so.’

Asked whether the Komnas HAM was conducting its own investigations, he said that this would depend on whether it falls within its authority to do so. The procedure requires that there should be an official request. Komnas HAM could make recommendations but that is all. But basically it is the responsibility of the police.’

As yet, the government and the legislature have said nothing.  ‘Up until now, those who have been expressing their concern about the cases are the NGOs, the churches and Komnas HAM. But issuing statements is not enough; bodies need to do whatever  is within their authority in order to change things for the better.  This is a matter for the legislature which should exercise its powers to do so.’

Related articles
2

Comments on ICGs Hope and Hard Reality in Papua:

Comments on

Hope and Hard Reality in Papua: An Update Briefing on the conflict in West Papua by the International Crisis Group (22 August 2011)

(ICG full PDF report available at:
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/B126-indonesia-hope-and-hard-reality-in-papua.aspx )

Jason MacLeod 23 August 2011

 

 

Introduction

The recent ICG report into conflict in West Papua, Hope and Hard Reality in Papua highlights the growing strength of the civilian based movement in Papua. It also points to contradictory developments. On the one hand there is an opening of political space, illustrated by the fact that the conference happened at all and that no topic was off the table. On the other hand, the report details ongoing violence in Puncak Jaya, demonstrating that the presence of the security forces only exacerbates violence as well as highlighting the enduring appeal of armed struggle by a small and hardcore group of Papuans. Hope and Hard Reality in Papua also outlines 44 “indicators of peace” developed during the conference. While still partial these indicators give tangible content to Papuan aspirations for freedom. This content echoes many of the demands made by Papuan youth, student, women’s groups, farmers, pastors, and Adat groups in recent years. Indicators like the “freedom of expression” and “the release of all political prisoners” bring into sharp focus the fact that Papua still remains an nondemocratic enclave of the Republic of Indonesia.

 

Summary of the report

The recent ICG report on West Papua, Hope and Hard Reality is structured in three sections: the peace conference held in Jayapura in early July 2011; an analysis of the recent spike in violence in the remote and rugged Puncak Jaya district in the highlands of West Papua; and, an evaluation of the extent to which a series of indicators developed during the peace conference could be used to resolve the conflict in Puncak Jaya. The report underscores a key policy recommendation currently sitting on the Cabinet Secretary desk – that the long-delayed new Unit to accelerate development in Papua, Unit Percepatan Pembangunan di Papua dan Papua Barat, known by its Indonesian acronym as UP4B, include a mandate to address political as well economic issues.

The report underscores an opportunity and threat. The opportunity is that there are some key high-level Indonesian allies, including advisors to the Indonesian government and a former Indonesian military officer, who understand that a political as well as economic solution to Papua’s problems is needed. The threat is two-fold. The first is that security operations continue in Papua. This is despite an extraordinary admission by Major-General (Ret.) TB Hassunuddin, deputy head of the Indonesian Government’s parliamentary Commission 1 responsible for security affairs, that all current operations to “hunt down OPM leaders are … illegal”. According to Hasunuddin this is because they do not carry the consent of parliament as stipulated by Law 34/2004 on the Indonesian Armed Forces. The General’s comments illustrate the lack of political will in Jakarta to rein-in the security forces in Papua. This last point relates to the second threat, summarised in the ICG report as “Jakarta’s indifference to indigenous Papuan concerns”.

The Papua Peace Conference and indicators of a peaceful Papua developed during the Conference

The Peace Conference was organised by the Jaringan Damai Papua or Papua Peace Network, a group organised by Dr. Neles Tebay or Pater (Father) Neles Tebay as he is known, and Muridan Widjojo, an Indonesian scholar with the Indonesian Institution of Sciences (LIPI) who was the editor of the Papua Road Map published in 2009. Tebay and Widjojo were previously involved in separate dialogue initiatives but have now decided to combine their efforts. The JDP itself is made up of key individuals, all members of different Papuan civil society groups, but attending as individuals not as representatives of their group or organisation. Both migrants and indigenous Papuans are members.

For me, three things stand out about the conference and the ICG’s summary report on the conference.

The first is that it happened at all. It was neither prevented from occurring by the military nor disrupted by protests. It was also attended by a senior minister of the Yudhuyono’s government, Djoko Sujanto, the Coordinating Minister for Politics and Law, and twenty senior bureaucrats from the various ministries that Sujanto coordinates. This in itself is a sign, albeit a small one, that the Indonesian president may be paying more attention to Papua.

Second, the conference clearly underscored Papuans desire for independence. This can be seen in the final declaration of the conference which outlined a criterion for negotiators and nominated five Papuan Diaspora negotiators, all from the Pro-Independence camp, as well as from an incident during the conference itself. When the Provincial Army Chief of Staff, Erfi Triassunu got up to speak he invited the participants – who were virtually all Papuans – to chant “Papua damai” (Peaceful Papua). Instead the crowd responded as one: “Papua Merdeka!” (Free Papua!). Perhaps not the response the General anticipated.

Third, although the report does not dwell on this, it does suggest that there are still key sectors of the Papuan population that are still not actively engaged in the struggle. These are Papuan politicians, the civil service (who the report acknowledges are engaging in a kind of passive noncooperation illustrated by the fact that in Puncak Jaya for instance, only 30 or an approximate 2000 strong workforce even show up for work); workers, particularly those in the resource extractive industries; and members of church congregations.

Fourth, and this is the most significant in my view, is that the conference produced a list of indicators of a peaceful Papua. Together these indicators are the clearest articulation of the “contents” of a New Papua that we have ever seen. Not only do they constitute a vision of tomorrow they may have important implications for the civil resistance movement. The ICG report argues that the indicators could be used to formulate policy direction for the central and provincial governments. The word “indicators” reflects the language of government and aid and development donors. However, many of the indicators mirror (and in some cases refine) an emerging set of campaign objectives that civil resistance leaders might organise around. In some cases, such as freeing political prisoners, Papuans they are already organising for change. Papuan activists could well use the “indicators” to pursue, and even set, the agenda for change.

 

Armed Struggle

The report also devotes significant attention to violent insurgency in the Puncak Jaya region by one of the few active units of the TPN-PB (Tentara Pembebasan Nasional di Papua Barat or the West Papuan National Liberation Army). Five things are worth highlighting from the report. First, Papuan guerrillas in Puncak Jaya, and elsewhere in West Papua are poorly armed. The report estimates that Goliat Tabuni’s group in Puncak Jaya has about 30 guns. This reflects the assessment of the armed struggle contained in the recently released Kopassus (Indonesian Special Forces) document leaked by the Sydney Morning Herald. Second, there are very low levels of participation in the armed struggle. Although virtually the entire indigenous population of Puncak Jaya has kinship connections with the TPN there are only a handful of active members. Third, the violence is not just one-sided or in response to Indonesian military attacks. Tabuni and his men, and in some cases other aspiring commanders also initiate attacks on the Indonesian military, not in direct response to Military violence, but to increase their own reputation and prestige.  Fourth, Tabuni’s group itself is split into three leadership groups which are sometimes compete and clash with one another. This reflects the fractious state of the TPN elsewhere in Papua.  Finally, the ICG report makes it very clear that violence in Puncak Jaya, some of which is also linked to inter-clan competition, is exacerbated by the presence of the security forces.

Theories of Change

Although it is not picked up in the report, Hope and Hard Reality in Papua underscores a battle of ideas underway in Papua. This discussion is essentially about how change (freedom) will be won. It is less a contest between armed struggle and peaceful ways of resolving the conflict. Despite the spike in violence (most of which was perpetrated by the security forces) there is little popular support for armed struggle. The contest is mostly between and within proponents of two different competing theories of change: those who believe dialogue, negotiation or other conventional political processes will secure Papuan aspirations for freedom and those who advocate mass mobilisation or civil resistance. The majority of Papuans still invest in the hope that conventional political processes – either diplomacy (by Papuan representatives of various resistance groups), an inclusive dialogue process of the kind envisioned by Tebay/Widjojo and the JDP, or a legal challenge to Indonesian government sovereignty in Papua – will be able to resolve the conflict. I don’t think there is any real indication that these acts of persuasion will compel Jakarta to sit at the table.

On the civil resistance side are Papuans who argue that a conventional political process is naïve. This group claims that Jakarta will only make key concessions when they are compelled to do through mass nonviolent disruptions that raise the political and economic costs of the status quo. Within the civil resistance camp there is also a subtle difference between those whose methods are based around street protests and those who are seeking to organise a much broader base and support them to be active through a much more diverse range of nonviolent tactics than demonstrations.

The fact that KNPB (Komite Nasional Papua Barat or the West Papua National Committee) organised a demonstration attended by thousands on 2 August in support of an conference about a legal challenge to the Act of Free Choice that was happening in Oxford at the same time, shows that there is growing understanding that a conventional political strategy needs a mass movement. Although, there are still widely held unrealistic expectations that dialogue and/or a legal strategy will bring about independence in the near future.

Then there is also tension around goals. The radical student and youth groups, WPNA (West Papua National Authority) and KNPB, as well as Benny Wenda in London (who heads up the International Lawyers for West Papua, the group who is spearheading the legal challenge) are pushing for a referendum. They see the JDP and calls for peaceful dialogue in opposition to the demand for a referendum. Despite these real differences and tensions the report (and recent events inside Papua) suggest that there is growing recognition that a mass movement and dialogue are not incompatible. Some are starting to say that civil resistance helps creates the conditions for dialogue. In fact the report seems to suggest that last year’s occupation of the Provincial Parliament in Jayapura helped widen the proposed mandate of the UP4B.

Allies

The ICG report also demonstrates that there are is a small but influential group of allies inside Indonesia who while not countenancing independence for Papua, do support real and significant political changes. In addition the report mentions but does not dwell on the fact that there are key non-Papuans inside Papua (who are members of the JDP) that support Papuan political goals.

Conclusion

The report illustrates the growing maturity of the civilian based movement inside Papua. The development of 44 indicators of a peaceful Papua around the themes of politics, law and human rights, economics and environment, security, and social-cultural rights all point to a closer linkage between civil resistance and conflict resolution approaches to change in Papua. The belief that civil resistance is not in conflict with but rather supports dialogue was made by Chris Waranussy, a prominent human rights lawyer in Papua. The most significant thing about the recent peace conference in Jayapura is that it has supported Papuans to more fully articulate the contents of freedom. It also underscores the mainstream Papuan desire for independence. In this sense the gulf between different positions in Jakarta and Jayapura, and the different perceptions of the problems in Papua, remains wide. A fact illustrated by what is going on in Puncak Jaya and the Indonesian military’s response.

Related articles
6

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑