1) Jakarta Post - Editorial : Ignoring Papua
2) ‘Pre-conditions’ for Papua
3) Papuans angered by President’s statement
-------------------------------
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/14/editorial-ignoring-papua.html
1) Editorial : Ignoring Papua
The Jakarta Post | Thu, 06/14/2012 7:39 AM
A- A A+
In an effort to solve a problem, a leader
has to avoid blowing an issue out of proportion or, in the extreme, playing it
down as if everything is fine. Unfortunately President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
is doing both.
When he learned that one or two Cabinet ministers
had placed their allegiance to him below loyalty to their parties, Yudhoyono
did nothing, despite his prerogative of coalition unity. But when fatal
shootings flared up in Papua, killing at least 16 civilians and security
personnel in the past month alone, the President saw no urgency to settle the
issue once and for all despite the fact that violence has been plaguing the
naturally resource-rich province for decades.
We are appalled by the President’s latest
statement, which described the recent incidents in Papua as small-scale, merely
taking into account the small number of fatalities that were far below the
number of lives lost in violence in the Middle East. The President has sent the
wrong message about his administration’s knowledge of what is really happening
in Papua. More than that, the statement confirms that doubts over Jakarta’s
commitment to addressing the prolonged injustice in Papua are not groundless.
Now the public at home and around the world
understand why there has been no comprehensive policy to deal with Papua,
despite a number of initiatives, like the formation of the Unit for
Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua (UP4B). The unit has so far
done much to open communications between local Papuans, including rebel groups,
and the central government, but Jakarta’s propensity to underestimate the core
problem of Papua — which is injustice — undermines the hard work and
achievements of the unit.
The Papuan shooting spree comes against the
backdrop of the international community’s discontent with Indonesia’s human
rights record in Papua during the UN Human Rights Commission’s convention in
Geneva a few weeks ago. It is therefore imperative for Indonesia, the
government in particular, to regain the world’s trust through affirmative
policies aimed at delivering justice for the Papuan people, including an end to
impunity given to perpetrators of atrocities.
Post-New Order Indonesia has resolved half of the
Herculean job of keeping Papua as part of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia
through special autonomy for the province in 2001, which allows Papua to enjoy
and manage the lion’s share of its revenue from natural resources. But
distribution of wealth has failed to materialize as most of the huge funds have
been wasted — or embezzled by the local elites — as is evident in the fact that
Papua and West Papua remain the most disadvantaged regions, mostly because of
Jakarta’s poor supervision and — more importantly — ignorance.
That Jakarta has let Papua squander its golden
opportunities to develop and advance is not surprising given President
Yudhoyono’s indifference to the Papuan people’s right to security.
Reports of the imminent restructuring of Papua’s
military command may exacerbate the already deteriorating security situation in
the province. The chief post in each of the three military commands (Korem) is
currently held by a colonel but will be given to a brigadier general. Only time
will tell whether the restructuring will result in the deployment of more
troops to Papua.
Until Yudhoyono, who himself promised a new deal
for Papua after taking office in 2004, agrees to hold talks with the Papuans
and listen to their grievances, the chance of a comprehensive solution to the
Papua conflict will remain slim.
Indonesia succeeded in ending armed conflict and
bringing peace back to Aceh in 2005 because there was a will. The same
determination must prevail in winning Papua’s hearts and minds.
-------------------------------
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/14/pre-conditions-papua.html
2) ‘Pre-conditions’ for Papua
Vidhyandika D Perkasa, Jakarta | Thu, 06/14/2012 7:41 AM
A- A A+
This moment could be
considered one of the bleakest times in Papuan history due to escalating
conflict and violence in the region. There have been several causalities
reported both civilians and military/police officers.
What attracted public attention is the locations of violence, which have tended
to shift from isolated areas, normally in the highlands or mountainous areas to
the capital of Papua, Jayapura.
In addition, these “mysterious shootings” have occurred in broad daylight and
have hit their “targets” in public areas and near police and military offices.
There are a few lessons that we could learn from the aforementioned escalating
conflict and violence in Papua. First, we can question whether President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono’s program of the Presidential Unit for the Acceleration of
Development in Papua and West Papua (UP4B) is indeed the right “panacea” to
solve the complex problems in Papua.
Also, is the program effectively implemented and enthusiastically welcomed by
the Papuans? There have been numerous reports which show people’s skepticism
about the program which may be rooted in the failure of Special Autonomy.
Second, escalating violence and conflict is also a sign that the government is
overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues in Papua and an inability to
restore order. Authorities are unable to catch and bring to trial the
perpetrators of such violence.
This is certainly a sad story. Unable to solve the problem, the government
tends to make unnecessary or defensive statements. For example, they claimed
that the violence was caused by a separatist movement.
This statement was indeed premature and lacked evidence, especially when
knowing that in the recent mysterious attacks the victim have been shot in
vital organs. The gunmen are certainly trained |people.
There are just too many “invisible hands” meddling in Papua, especially when
the case in Papua is about power politics and vested economic interests
(Macleod and Martin, 2012).
Therefore, the government needs to update their data on the mapping of violence
and conflict in this region. Various violent incidents in Papua could be
committed by several “actors”. Therefore, the government should not easily
scapegoat local Papuans as perpetrators of such attacks. The government must
also have the courage to publish the conflict and violence mapping as clear
evidence.
An article by Macleod and Martin (2012) clearly stated that there are segments
of the population in Papua which are indeed opting for a nonviolent struggle.
They argued that a nonviolent struggle, is definitely more desirable than an
armed struggle, which causes less loss of life and greater participation of
ordinary people.
Another repetitive and unreasonable statement by the government is that these
perpetrators of conflict are difficult to capture because of the isolated and
geographic conditions in Papua. This may be true in one sense, but as media
reported, quoting from the statement by Neles Tebay, mysterious shootings and
snipers are currently operating in the city of Jayapura. How hard could it be
to locate these shooters in Jayapura, which is geographically a small city?
Third, with the rise of conflict and violence occurring lately, it is a clear
sign of deepening distrust between the Papuans and the government. The
government is seen as incapable or not serious about solving problems in Papua.
The mysterious shootings and snipers only exacerbate the already heated
situation there.
When distrust is deepening between the two parties, what is then the prospect
of dialogue? Dialogue seems to be a more popular word, recently compared to any
other catchword, when one talks about Papua.
The questions that follow in dialogue, which should be publicly understood, are
who should be involved? What should be the content of dialogue? What is the
time frame? What is the measurement of success or failure in a dialogue? What
are the objectives, outcome and output indicators of a dialogue? What are the
key activities in a dialogue and so forth?
Dialogue is only a means or even a tool to solve problems in Papua and not an
end in itself. There are pre-conditions that need to be taken into
consideration before dialogue could be implemented effectively. In other words,
there are “prerequisites” for effective dialogue. We need to remember that
“winning trust” is one of the main objectives of dialogue.
Supported by UNDEF, CSIS is currently conducting a project to promote Social
Accountability in Papua. We have worked with various elements of civil society.
In Australia we have also talked with several academicians to obtain their
insights on the situation in Papua.
It is interesting that during our project activities, elements of civil society
and Australian academicians frequently stressed the importance of meeting these
pre-conditions before any other programs or even dialogue could be effectively
implemented.
When these preconditions are met, there is hope that the government could win
the long awaited trust from the Papuans.
In our discussion with elements of civil society and Australian academicians,
the preconditions for Papua are clarification on the history of Papua’s
integration, investigating human rights violations and bringing to trial the
perpetrators, a fair trial for Papuans “convicted” for involvement in separatist
actions, eliminating Papuan marginalization, and improving the welfare of
Papuans.
Does the government have the political will to deal with these preconditions in
a timely manner? Let’s say Papuan integration is final and not considered a
topic which needs further discussion; there are still other preconditions which
are seemingly manageable to be sorted out.
To conclude, we could say that the current instability and chaos in Papua is
the price that the government must pay for neglecting or even underestimating
the complexity of the problems in Papua. The government and other stakeholders
need a breakthrough and not treating Papua just as business as usual to restore
peace and order.
One possible solution is bringing onto the discussion table a third party
negotiator, whether a prominent national or international figure who is trusted
and respected by the Papuans.
The government should not be paranoid about bringing international parties,
especially when it is clearly stated beforehand that a referendum in not an
option and the history of integration is final. Another solution is again
making more serious efforts to meet the preconditions for Papua mentioned
earlier. These are indeed urgent tasks to help avoid further disruptions in
Papua.
The writer is a researcher at the Department of Politics and
International Relations, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
Jakarta.
----------------------
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/06/14/papuans-angered-president-s-statement.html
3) Papuans angered by President’s statement
Margareth S. Aritonang and Rabby Pramudatama, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Thu, 06/14/2012 7:36 AM
A- A A+
Papuans condemned President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s
statement, which downplayed the escalating violence in the province and
considered the recent deaths from shooting incidents as relatively minor in
comparison to conflicts in other parts of the world.
During a Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, Yudhoyono said “the recent incidents in
Papua can be considered small-scale, with a limited number of casualties” and
“they are minor if we compare them to the violence in the Middle East, where
deadly attacks with so many fatalities occur almost every day”.
Papuan activist John Djonga said the statements reflected Yudhoyono’s lack of
commitment to promote and protect human rights, an issue that his
administration had championed and promoted to the global community.
“It’s really sad for the President to disrespect all the victims of recent
shootings. Violence is still painful regardless of how many victims there are.
So for me, it is now clear that the Yudhoyono [administration], and the
Indonesian government in general, have no commitment to upholding justice and
protecting human rights in Papua,” Djonga told The Jakarta Post on Wednesday.
He said that all the international human rights covenants promoting human
rights that Indonesia had ratified were useless as the government paid little
respect to the lives of its people.
“Or maybe it’s only the lives of Papuans that don’t deserve the government’s
respect,” he said.
Separately, members of the House of Representatives from Papua, Pasakalis
Kossay and Agustina Basik-basik, called on Yudhoyono to apologize for his
statement.
“The President’s words really hurt Papuans, and the relatives of all victims,
in particular those who have been shot dead in mysterious circumstances,” said
Paskalis, who chairs the Caucus for Papua at the House.
At least 16 people were killed in the past month alone in mysterious shootings.
The latest incident claimed the life of 44-year-old Surono, a security guard
and part-time motorcycle taxi driver in Jayapura, who was shot dead near the
campus of Cendrawasih University last Sunday.
The mysterious shootings in Papua escalated only a few days after the
Indonesian government claimed that “Papua is stable” during the United Nations
Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) quadrennial human rights review on May 23.
Diplomats in the review session inquired about human rights violations in Papua
and the Indonesian government’s commitment to releasing Papuan political detainees
such as Filep Karma, who was arrested for flying the flag of the Papuan
separatist movement.
Separately, Law and Human Rights Minister Amir Syamsudin said that authorities
had followed proper procedures in detaining Papuans.
“We have never detained anybody for expressing their freedom of speech as has
been accused by some parties. The Papuans who were detained, including Filep
Karma, are those who have obviously violated the law on treason. Therefore,
it’s misleading to address them as political detainees,” Amir told reporters.
Separately, the executive director of human rights watchdog Imparsial, Poengky
Indarti said that treason charges were highly political and prone to abuse by
the government.
“Karma, and many of his colleagues, was detained for flying the Morning Star
flag, the flag associated with a separatist movement. They are condemned as
separatists, therefore they are political detainees,” Poengky said.