| Home > South-East Asia >> West Papua | |
West Papua: My people need Australia's help before it is too late
The Guardian (Australia) - April 28, 2014
For more than 50 years, my people have suffered what I considered to be a slow-moving genocide under the repressive military occupation of Indonesia. During the second world war, the "Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels" of West Papua came to the aid of Australian soldiers. Now it is the West Papuans that need Australia's help in order to end human rights abuses so that my people can be free to live in peace.
Indonesia's response to West Papua advocacy abroad has been frighteningly vehement. After the opening of our UK office in 2013, Indonesia made a diplomatic complaint to the British government. Foreign minister Natelegawa said he could not understand why the British government was "unwilling to take steps against the Free West Papua office", and the president even tweeted about it. The British ambassador in Jakarta was summoned and had to remind Indonesia of the protections enjoyed in democracies, pointing out that no steps would be taken against our office, since it "does not require [government] permission to open".
Bob Carr revealed in his recent memoir that he had discussed the prospect of us opening an Australian office with Indonesia's foreign minister at that time, and was told that Indonesia would "prefer [Australia] not to allow an office to open". During his state visit to Indonesia last year, prime minister Abbott said last year that West Papuan activists were not welcome in Australia, and that Australia would not tolerate West Papuans' demonstrations against Indonesian control.
But we hope that the Australian government will follow the example set by the British government: reminding Indonesia that, unlike in West Papua where people are sent to prison for 15 years for merely raising a flag, Australia is a democracy where freedom of speech is protected and where West Papuans and those who support us can speak out about our desire for self-determination.
The Australian public clearly has much sympathy for West Papua and for our cause – both historically and today. Australia initially prepared to go to war with the Dutch to prevent Indonesia's invasion of West Papua in the early 1960s. As a result of Cold War real-politik and US pressure, Australia stepped out of the dispute. Much like the support for Indonesian control over East Timor until 1999, the Australian government has so far refused to acknowledge West Papua's claim to self-determination out of concern for its relationship with Indonesia. Like in East Timor, the law is on our side. If Australia can change its position on East Timor, it can change its position on West Papua.
Despite the government's current position, the Australian public remains supportive. An opinion poll commissioned in 2006 showed over 75% of Australians support self determination – including the option of independence – for West Papua. My last visit to Australia was for a 2013 TEDx event where I spoke alongside my lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. We received two standing ovations from a packed out Sydney Opera House, and I was overwhelmed by the support and encouragement we received from the audience.
Predictably, Indonesia was concerned. Some officials argued that Indonesia should cut diplomatic ties with Australia for allowing me the opportunity to speak about my people's cause. A few days later, Australia's then foreign minister Bob Carr responded in the Senate, saying that Australians supporting West Papua's claim to self-determination was "an appalling thing to do". In his memoir, Carr refers to our office opening in Oxford, alleging we are "provocateurs who encourage Papuans to put their lives on the line", and spoke with concern about the prospect of an office opening in Australia.
What is appalling is how my people have been betrayed by the United Nations and by the international community and left to suffer at the hands of a brutal Indonesian military regime. What is appalling is Indonesia asking Britain and Australia to compromise on their own values and freedoms in order to silence us.
We are not provocateurs, but advocates for the rights of the West Papuan people. As a leader in exile, I have an obligation and duty to my people to use the democratic freedoms I enjoy abroad to speak out about their suffering. The only people putting Papuan lives on the line are those who kill peaceful activists with absolute impunity (more than 22 of them were killed in 2012 alone).
My people's lives remain on the line – and the nations who continue to support Indonesian control are complicit. We aim, through opening the office in Australia, to raise awareness about the illegality of Indonesia's occupation, and about this ongoing violence.
Raising awareness is important, especially when Tony Abbott claims that West Papuans are "better not worse off" under Indonesia. This is just not true. It is estimated that more than half a million West Papuans have been killed since Indonesian occupation in the 1960s. We are the poorest province in Indonesia, despite being the richest in natural resources. Literacy is very poor – the worst in Indonesia. Health statistics are grim. We are suffering an HIV/AIDS crisis with the highest rate of infection in Indonesia. There are at least 73 West Papuan political prisoners in Indonesia today. I cannot and will not remain silent while my people suffer.
Australia has before taken a stand against Indonesia in order to respect international law and protect West Papuans. In 2006, Australia granted asylum to 42 West Papuans after concluding (correctly) that, as activists advocating independence for West Papua, they would be persecuted if they were returned to Indonesia. This decision was taken in accordance with Australia's obligations under international law, and Australia should be commended for standing by that decision despite Indonesia recalling its ambassador.
We hope that Australia will withstand pressure from Indonesia over the opening of our office. Lest we forget: by the time Australia changed its political position to support East Timor, close to a third of its population had been killed by the Indonesian military. My people need Australia's help before it is too late.
*** op ed
Military reform swept under the rug
Jakarta Post - April 28, 2014
Fitri Bintang Timur and Puri Kencana Putri, Jakarta – Recently, Indonesian Military (TNI) Commander Gen. Moeldoko stated that "democratic transition should be concluded this year" as Indonesia had yet to achieve political stability.
The commander's responsibility is to ensure that national defense is in top-notch condition and to oversee internal military institutional reform. Does his statement mean he is eyeing a political position beyond his current defense role? Does his reference to the protracted transition and yearning for stability mean he subscribes to the New Order fixation, which insinuates that civilians are not ready to lead the country and that the military should lend a hand again?
One analyst has suggested moving from questioning security sector reform to security sector "transformation", arguing that the focus should change from making the military accountable for its conduct to arming the TNI with the latest weaponry Indonesia can afford, especially with the regional turmoil over the South China Sea.
Others similarly view that Indonesia's military reform has been completed successfully. Such complacency has led to unsuccessful reform issues being swept under the rug.
Yes, there have been huge improvements within the TNI since the end of the New Order. The dwifungsi (dual role in defense and civilian life) has been removed, no military member obtains a free seat in the legislature, business units have been restructured from the corps to being under the Defense Ministry or State-Owned Enterprises Ministry, and the police are no longer part of the military. Yet we should also remember the shortcomings of military reform.
First, reform is incomplete regarding the military's respect for human rights. In 2000, the TNI published a Soldiers' Guideline for Human Rights Implementation.
However, there is no guarantee that soldiers will behave according to the guidelines, as long as there is no commitment of the institution's willingness to be bound by human rights standards.
It has been just a little over a year since the Cebongan attack in Sleman, Yogyakarta, when members of the Army's Special Forces (Kopassus) raided a prison, killing an inmate who they said was a thug who killed a colleague.
This incident ruined the decade-old image of fairly successful TNI reform as its weapons storage was compromised and the soldiers involved did not show any respect for human rights, nor for international norms respecting civil-military relations, as stipulated in the 1949 Geneva Convention.
The attack occurred in an area relatively accessible for the media; pressure instantly mounted for an investigation and an open trial for the suspects.
But what would have happened if this incident had taken place somewhere in Papua, with limited media access? What would happen if journalists themselves were the victims, like the "Balibo Five" in former East Timor?
In 2012 alone, the independent Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) recorded more than 90 cases of violence involving military members, including maltreatment (55 cases), destruction (10) and shooting (four cases). As these violations were not widely reported, the public has no idea whether the TNI addressed the cases internally, or whether it turned a blind eye due to a lack of internal accountability supervision.
This condition leads to the second shortcoming in military reform: the sluggish progress regarding military tribunals. The open tribunal on the Cebongan attack, held after mounting public pressure, was a rare event. The legislature has been debating revisions to the Military Tribunal Law since 2004. The bill stipulates that military personnel suspected of criminal acts will be brought before a civil court, rather than a military tribunal, as the latter usually gives administrative penalties rather than penalties aimed at deterrence.
Analyst Wahyudi Djafar has noted that even if accused military personnel were to be brought before a military tribunal, the tribunal should adhere to principles such as transparency and accountability, besides handing out punishment befitting the crime. Apparently, these requirements have become major obstacles to the amendment of the Military Tribunal Law. As a result, today's military tribunals still preserve impunity, giving lenient punishment and freeing masterminds from individual responsibility.
The pattern is similar to the tribunal of Kopassus members found guilty of abduction and forced disappearance of student activists in 1998; perpetrators were brought to court, but the one giving the assignment is still protected by law.
The third issue is the untouched territorial commands (Koter) at the local level, which were used by the New Order to spy on and influence the population. There is no reason for the military to persist having operations in the local areas, as it should focus on being the first line of defense against outside threats in the frontier areas.
Because military personnel are still deployed at the local level, the Koter will always be suspected as effective political tools, for instance to conduct voter mobilization and intimidation around each election time. Hence, Koter needs to be reformed, or else military personnel or retired officers might use its network to gain political support up to the local district.
Returning to Gen. Moeldoko's wish of the conclusion to democratic transition to make way for political stability, it is not his position to provide such a statement.
Unless he is subtly hinting an underlying motive that he is ready to leave his military throne to join politicians and the business crowd – just like several former generals leading political parties and several others taking commissioner positions in state owned enterprises.
[Fitri Bintang Timur is a researcher at the Institute for Defense Security and Peace Studies and a Fellow of Marthinus Academy, Jakarta. Puri Kencana Putri is a researcher at the independent Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), and a graduate student of international law and human rights at the University for Peace, Costa Rica.]
Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/04/28/military-reform-swept-under-rug.html
See also:
 |
West Papua West Papua Links Statements and Press Releases on West Papua Indoleft Archive Indonesia links Indonesia News Digest News services on Indonesia Publications & videos on Indonesia Reports & articles on Indonesia Statements & press releases on Indonesia