Letters: Why is the gun still pointed at us?
Sat, 03/27/2010 12:41 PM | Opinion
This is a response to Riem Hemmat's comment (the Post, March 15). I bet you have never lived in West Papua, have you? Or never walked in West Papuans' shoes.
Your argument, to some extent, might be true, but my questions are, if West Papuans were part of Indonesia, why did the West Papuans never share the same history as other Indonesians? Why, since integration in 1963, has the central government kept sending additional troops to West Papua? As you said, there were no bombings or attacks, as in Aceh in the past.
I was brought up as the product of a Javanese and a Papuan and have lived in West Papua for more than 25 years and, for me, for whatever reasons, the central government has mismanaged the issue of West Papua, and it's not right.
If we are part of Indonesia, treat us fairly, by using such elegant manners called diplomacy and dialog, but the truth remains the same, the gun and military operations are the choices employed. If the central government wants to improve things, give access to humanitarian aid for West Papua; give access to international journalists to report on the situation. The fact is the government is too afraid that people will tell the bitter story.
Anyway, you have to spend many years in Papua and live in two cultures to have a better understanding of West Papua's issues. West Papuans definitely have a different history, you should bear in mind that we were never involved in any prominent historical moment of Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) nor share the same "nationalism".
If we are Indonesians, why is the gun still pointing at us? If we are Indonesians, why is the stereotypical label when we are in other parts of Indonesia so derogative?
As to your comments about the Indonesian language, you should learn the history of language planning in Indonesia and look at case studies in Laos for comparison, and the role of politics in setting up the language for different ethnicities and forcing people to use that language.
Before integration, several tribes in northern part of West Papua and in some parts of southern Papua traded with Mollucans, and they spoke bazaar Malay. In fact, the way West Papuans speak is a kind of Creole language, and influenced mostly by the Ambon Malay, Portuguese, Dutch and tribal languages (similar to the way the indigenous Australians speak kriol) it's a result of contacts over centuries. My question for you is, if people speak English (comparing it to your West Papuan case of speaking Indonesia), let's say in India, Singapore, the United States, the Philippines and other countries which consider English as the official language or second language, can we consider them as "English people"?
Dayanara Meimosaki
Canberra
Tuesday 30 March 2010
Wednesday 3 March 2010
Future of AIDS gels may lie in drugs, experts say
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The quest for a cream or gel to prevent AIDS infection has narrowed to using powerful HIV pills that are already on the market, scientists say.
Health
AIDS experts have long been searching for a microbicide -- a cream, gel or vaginal ring that women or men could use as a chemical shield to protect themselves from sexual transmission of the deadly and incurable virus.
Several substances have been tried unsuccessfully but experiments presented this week at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, a scientific meeting of AIDS experts, suggested HIV drugs might hold the key to making such gels work.
"The next wave of compounds is all going to be based on antiretroviral drugs," Dr. John Moore of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York told reporters.
Moore's team tested Pfizer's new drug maraviroc, sold under the brand name Selzentry. It is in a new class of drugs called CCR5 entry inhibitors, designed to stop the human immunodeficiency virus from getting into human cells using a type of cellular doorway or receptor named CCR5.
"The CCR5 inhibitors are compelling candidates as an alternative because these drugs are not being used for treatment in, for example, Africa," Moore said.
That means there is less risk of resistance developing -- when viruses evolve to get around the effects of drugs.
Moore's team took a unique approach to formulating their experimental microbicide using Selzentry.
"We found a friendly physician, scrounged a tablet, ground it up," Moore said. "I assure you it actually works very well," he told the San Francisco meeting.
Tests in monkeys showed it would protect a female from sexual transmission for about four hours. "You couldn't apply these gels in the morning and have protection in the evening," Moore said.
A vaginal ring with a time-release formula may work better for longer-term protection, Moore said.
The approach is affordable, he said. "A single maraviroc tablet, about 300 mg, retailing for about $15 on the Internet, contains enough drug to fully protect around 15 macaques. That is broadly going to be applicable to women."
Laura Guay of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation said the approach sounds reasonable. Her group supports the development of microbicides to protect women and by extension their children.
"The hope is by putting antiretrovirals into the microbicide, you can prevent the virus from either entering or replicating," she said in a telephone interview.
Last year researchers found Gilead Sciences Inc.'s drug Truvada also might work as a microbicide. But a gel made by Massachusetts-based Indevus Pharmaceuticals that did not include an HIV drug failed in human trials.
The AIDS virus, which infects 33 million people globally and has killed 25 million, is mostly passed sexually. In Africa women account for more new cases than men and are often infected by their husbands.
Abstinence and condom use are not options for women trying to have children, but a microbicide would be. Microbicides using HIV drugs would represent a large new market for the companies that make the drugs, which are currently now used only to treat infection.
(Editing by Alan Elsner)
Health
Health
AIDS experts have long been searching for a microbicide -- a cream, gel or vaginal ring that women or men could use as a chemical shield to protect themselves from sexual transmission of the deadly and incurable virus.
Several substances have been tried unsuccessfully but experiments presented this week at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections, a scientific meeting of AIDS experts, suggested HIV drugs might hold the key to making such gels work.
"The next wave of compounds is all going to be based on antiretroviral drugs," Dr. John Moore of Weill Cornell Medical College in New York told reporters.
Moore's team tested Pfizer's new drug maraviroc, sold under the brand name Selzentry. It is in a new class of drugs called CCR5 entry inhibitors, designed to stop the human immunodeficiency virus from getting into human cells using a type of cellular doorway or receptor named CCR5.
"The CCR5 inhibitors are compelling candidates as an alternative because these drugs are not being used for treatment in, for example, Africa," Moore said.
That means there is less risk of resistance developing -- when viruses evolve to get around the effects of drugs.
Moore's team took a unique approach to formulating their experimental microbicide using Selzentry.
"We found a friendly physician, scrounged a tablet, ground it up," Moore said. "I assure you it actually works very well," he told the San Francisco meeting.
Tests in monkeys showed it would protect a female from sexual transmission for about four hours. "You couldn't apply these gels in the morning and have protection in the evening," Moore said.
A vaginal ring with a time-release formula may work better for longer-term protection, Moore said.
The approach is affordable, he said. "A single maraviroc tablet, about 300 mg, retailing for about $15 on the Internet, contains enough drug to fully protect around 15 macaques. That is broadly going to be applicable to women."
Laura Guay of the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation said the approach sounds reasonable. Her group supports the development of microbicides to protect women and by extension their children.
"The hope is by putting antiretrovirals into the microbicide, you can prevent the virus from either entering or replicating," she said in a telephone interview.
Last year researchers found Gilead Sciences Inc.'s drug Truvada also might work as a microbicide. But a gel made by Massachusetts-based Indevus Pharmaceuticals that did not include an HIV drug failed in human trials.
The AIDS virus, which infects 33 million people globally and has killed 25 million, is mostly passed sexually. In Africa women account for more new cases than men and are often infected by their husbands.
Abstinence and condom use are not options for women trying to have children, but a microbicide would be. Microbicides using HIV drugs would represent a large new market for the companies that make the drugs, which are currently now used only to treat infection.
(Editing by Alan Elsner)
Health
Obama, the Dalai Lama and Indonesia
The Dalai Lama said US President Barack Obama was “supportive” in a meeting that drew angry protests from China. (AFP Photo/Tim Sloan)
In meeting with the Dalai Lama last week, Barack Obama sent a message of hope to oppressed people around the globe. But what does the encounter mean for Indonesia?
The message: In the name of human rights protection, undemocratic regimes must realize that America stands up for victims of oppression.
Indeed, Obama’s White House seems to have emphasized human rights protection over possible strategies for decreasing the country’s huge trade deficit with China. The red carpet that Obama rolled out for Tibet’s spiritual leader, a man Beijing sees as a dissident worthy of punishment, has surely increased the tension in already strained Sino-United States relations.
Beijing now has an additional excuse to continue its rejection of Obama’s call to strengthen the yuan. The US trade deficit is likely to continue to increase. Even in the absence of a stern counterattack from China over the Dalai Lama’s visit, pressure would continue to mount in the United States’ trade and business dealings with the Asian giant.
The message sent to Beijing over the visit flies in the face of China’s sense of sovereignty and territorial integrity. For China, Tibet — like Taiwan — is a province and an integral part of the nation.
Even the Tibetan leader has proposed what he calls a “middle road” approach, which Washington has endorsed, for “greater cultural identity and human rights.” But such a strategy will not likely satisfy Beijing.
Though Beijing will probably not retaliate strongly against Obama’s diplomatic flirtation with the Dalai Lama, a lack of strategic support for America could be devastating. The US is concerned about China’s potential resistance to efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear program, particularly in light of Beijing’s warming ties with Tehran over the last decade.
Obama told Senate Democrats a day before receiving the Tibetan leader that to continue “putting constant pressure on China and other countries to open up their markets,” he needs to meet separatist leaders.
A similar strategy here would be counterproductive for Washington’s relations with Jakarta. In fact, I can’t imagine he would want to spoil his nostalgic visit with such misguided signals. Indonesian political leaders do not expect Obama to meet separatist leaders during his March trip to Jakarta, though he may raise the need for “preserving the cultural identity” of Papua — which hosts the massive mining operation of US copper and gold giant Freeport — during his meeting with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
But the era of pressuring Indonesia on Papua or other issues has passed. The world’s third largest democracy needs a more balanced relationship with the superpower. Obama and Yudhoyono could write a new chapter under an equal partnership. Indonesia is quite a different country than it was during the four years he lived in Jakarta from 1968 1971.
According to Nasir Tamara, author of “Indonesia Rising,” China and India have been given higher priority in Indonesia’s foreign policy, while efforts have been made to foster close relations with Islamic energy-producing countries. Asean is no longer a high priority, while political and defense relations with Russia have also improved.
During a 2005 speech in Washington, Yudhoyono declared that “Indonesia is now an outward-looking country, very much eager to shape the regional and international order and intent on having our voice heard.”
US relations with Indonesia improved significantly after the December 2004 tsunami, after which extensive American aid poured in, with one-third of US households reportedly donating to tsunami relief.
Bilateral relations also warmed when Washington lifted an embargo on military equipment and resumed training for Indonesian Military officers in the United States, despite many Indonesians’ hostility toward former President George W Bush.
The US also supported Indonesia’s bid to become a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council, and Indonesia gladly took on a role as bridge between the US and the Muslim world.
Obama has yet to reveal what concrete actions might boost Americans’ perception of and attitude toward the Muslim world. The US needs to listen to Indonesian Muslim leaders’ concerns about terrorism and the war against it. Obama’s spectacular Cairo speech set the tone for better relations with the Muslim world, but this needs to be substantiated during his visit to Indonesia. It is not just Obama who needs to embrace Indonesia; the rest of America must do the same.
Indonesia needs to put its own house in order if it wants more attention from the US. This nation’s lack of legal certainty is a key problem, and its protection of civil rights for minority groups is far from satisfactory.
President Obama has stood up for human rights in other contexts, so we should urge him also to address infringements or violations of rights against minority groups here.
Given that his meeting with the spiritual leader of Tibet risked straining Sino-US relations, Obama can certainly afford to meet with leaders of minority religions here in Indonesia with little diplomatic fallout.
Most people here hope that because Obama once lived in Jakarta and grew up with an Indonesian stepfather, he might help Indonesia more than his predecessors. This remains to be seen. But at the end of the day, if Indonesia fails to capitalize on Obama’s unprecedented trip, only Indonesians will be to blame.
Indonesian politicians must be reminded that this opportunity is too dear to squander. Politicians distracted by dirty tricks in the Bank Century case must put aside petty politics and take full advantage of next month’s visit.
Pitan Daslani is executive chief editor of Campus Asia magazine. He can be reached at pitandaslani@gmail.com.
In meeting with the Dalai Lama last week, Barack Obama sent a message of hope to oppressed people around the globe. But what does the encounter mean for Indonesia?
The message: In the name of human rights protection, undemocratic regimes must realize that America stands up for victims of oppression.
Indeed, Obama’s White House seems to have emphasized human rights protection over possible strategies for decreasing the country’s huge trade deficit with China. The red carpet that Obama rolled out for Tibet’s spiritual leader, a man Beijing sees as a dissident worthy of punishment, has surely increased the tension in already strained Sino-United States relations.
Beijing now has an additional excuse to continue its rejection of Obama’s call to strengthen the yuan. The US trade deficit is likely to continue to increase. Even in the absence of a stern counterattack from China over the Dalai Lama’s visit, pressure would continue to mount in the United States’ trade and business dealings with the Asian giant.
The message sent to Beijing over the visit flies in the face of China’s sense of sovereignty and territorial integrity. For China, Tibet — like Taiwan — is a province and an integral part of the nation.
Even the Tibetan leader has proposed what he calls a “middle road” approach, which Washington has endorsed, for “greater cultural identity and human rights.” But such a strategy will not likely satisfy Beijing.
Though Beijing will probably not retaliate strongly against Obama’s diplomatic flirtation with the Dalai Lama, a lack of strategic support for America could be devastating. The US is concerned about China’s potential resistance to efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear program, particularly in light of Beijing’s warming ties with Tehran over the last decade.
Obama told Senate Democrats a day before receiving the Tibetan leader that to continue “putting constant pressure on China and other countries to open up their markets,” he needs to meet separatist leaders.
A similar strategy here would be counterproductive for Washington’s relations with Jakarta. In fact, I can’t imagine he would want to spoil his nostalgic visit with such misguided signals. Indonesian political leaders do not expect Obama to meet separatist leaders during his March trip to Jakarta, though he may raise the need for “preserving the cultural identity” of Papua — which hosts the massive mining operation of US copper and gold giant Freeport — during his meeting with President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
But the era of pressuring Indonesia on Papua or other issues has passed. The world’s third largest democracy needs a more balanced relationship with the superpower. Obama and Yudhoyono could write a new chapter under an equal partnership. Indonesia is quite a different country than it was during the four years he lived in Jakarta from 1968 1971.
According to Nasir Tamara, author of “Indonesia Rising,” China and India have been given higher priority in Indonesia’s foreign policy, while efforts have been made to foster close relations with Islamic energy-producing countries. Asean is no longer a high priority, while political and defense relations with Russia have also improved.
During a 2005 speech in Washington, Yudhoyono declared that “Indonesia is now an outward-looking country, very much eager to shape the regional and international order and intent on having our voice heard.”
US relations with Indonesia improved significantly after the December 2004 tsunami, after which extensive American aid poured in, with one-third of US households reportedly donating to tsunami relief.
Bilateral relations also warmed when Washington lifted an embargo on military equipment and resumed training for Indonesian Military officers in the United States, despite many Indonesians’ hostility toward former President George W Bush.
The US also supported Indonesia’s bid to become a nonpermanent member of the UN Security Council, and Indonesia gladly took on a role as bridge between the US and the Muslim world.
Obama has yet to reveal what concrete actions might boost Americans’ perception of and attitude toward the Muslim world. The US needs to listen to Indonesian Muslim leaders’ concerns about terrorism and the war against it. Obama’s spectacular Cairo speech set the tone for better relations with the Muslim world, but this needs to be substantiated during his visit to Indonesia. It is not just Obama who needs to embrace Indonesia; the rest of America must do the same.
Indonesia needs to put its own house in order if it wants more attention from the US. This nation’s lack of legal certainty is a key problem, and its protection of civil rights for minority groups is far from satisfactory.
President Obama has stood up for human rights in other contexts, so we should urge him also to address infringements or violations of rights against minority groups here.
Given that his meeting with the spiritual leader of Tibet risked straining Sino-US relations, Obama can certainly afford to meet with leaders of minority religions here in Indonesia with little diplomatic fallout.
Most people here hope that because Obama once lived in Jakarta and grew up with an Indonesian stepfather, he might help Indonesia more than his predecessors. This remains to be seen. But at the end of the day, if Indonesia fails to capitalize on Obama’s unprecedented trip, only Indonesians will be to blame.
Indonesian politicians must be reminded that this opportunity is too dear to squander. Politicians distracted by dirty tricks in the Bank Century case must put aside petty politics and take full advantage of next month’s visit.
Pitan Daslani is executive chief editor of Campus Asia magazine. He can be reached at pitandaslani@gmail.com.
Get maids from Papua New Guinea, Myanmar, Timor Leste - papa
News 2010-02-22 16:54
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 22 (Bernama) -- The Malaysian Association of Foreign Maid Agencies (Papa) has urged the government to consider recruiting maids from Papua New Guinea, Myanmar and Timor Leste.
Its president, Alwi Bavutty said this would ease the dependence on maids from Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines.
"We are submitting this proposal to the Human Resources Ministry due to high demand for maids," he told Bernama when contacted today.
He was commenting on Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S.Subramaniam's statement that Malaysia and Indonesia were currently in talks to find a "middle path" in resolving the outstanding Indonesian maids salary issue after their previous discussions ended in a deadlock.
Alwi said made agencies were allowed to recruit maids form Cambodia and the Philippines following the freeze on maid intake by the Indonesian government since the middle of last year.
Alwi said however, Muslims were barred from employing non-Muslim maids from the two countries.
Supporting the government's stand that maids salary should be based on market forces as well as negotiations between employers and employees, he said it should be a win-win situation for both parties.
"Maids are getting at least RM500 a month. If their work is excellent, employers should raise their pay. Their qualifications should also be taken into consideration," he added.
Meanwhile, Bocehe Dewe Association, an association made up of 32,000 Indonesian workers, supported a condition imposed by the ministry that all new maids and their respective employers must attend a seminar meant to educate them on their rights and responsibilities.
Its chairman, Ambar Setiowibowo said Malaysia and Indonesia should iron out perennial issues like minimum wage, maid abuse and transgression of rules and conditions by employers.
"As we have not agreed on minimum wage, there should be an understanding between employers and maids on a reasonable wage and maids, who performed well, should be rewarded with an increment," he added. (By Syed Azwan Syed Ali/ Bernama)
KUALA LUMPUR, Feb 22 (Bernama) -- The Malaysian Association of Foreign Maid Agencies (Papa) has urged the government to consider recruiting maids from Papua New Guinea, Myanmar and Timor Leste.
Its president, Alwi Bavutty said this would ease the dependence on maids from Indonesia, Cambodia and the Philippines.
"We are submitting this proposal to the Human Resources Ministry due to high demand for maids," he told Bernama when contacted today.
He was commenting on Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S.Subramaniam's statement that Malaysia and Indonesia were currently in talks to find a "middle path" in resolving the outstanding Indonesian maids salary issue after their previous discussions ended in a deadlock.
Alwi said made agencies were allowed to recruit maids form Cambodia and the Philippines following the freeze on maid intake by the Indonesian government since the middle of last year.
Alwi said however, Muslims were barred from employing non-Muslim maids from the two countries.
Supporting the government's stand that maids salary should be based on market forces as well as negotiations between employers and employees, he said it should be a win-win situation for both parties.
"Maids are getting at least RM500 a month. If their work is excellent, employers should raise their pay. Their qualifications should also be taken into consideration," he added.
Meanwhile, Bocehe Dewe Association, an association made up of 32,000 Indonesian workers, supported a condition imposed by the ministry that all new maids and their respective employers must attend a seminar meant to educate them on their rights and responsibilities.
Its chairman, Ambar Setiowibowo said Malaysia and Indonesia should iron out perennial issues like minimum wage, maid abuse and transgression of rules and conditions by employers.
"As we have not agreed on minimum wage, there should be an understanding between employers and maids on a reasonable wage and maids, who performed well, should be rewarded with an increment," he added. (By Syed Azwan Syed Ali/ Bernama)
Obama Has the Power to Help Papua, the ‘Weak Man’ Under Indonesian Rule
by Andreas Harsono, Indonesia consultant for Human Rights Watch
Published in: The Jakarta Globe
February 21, 2010
In Jakarta in the late 1960s, a young Barack Obama noticed his stepfather's great unease and silence about his one-year military service in New Guinea. Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather, did not like to talk about his time there. He did tell young Barack about how leeches got into his boots in New Guinea's jungles. "They crawled inside your army boots while you're hiking through the swamps. At night, when you take off your socks, they're stuck there, fat with blood. You sprinkle salt on them and they die, but you still have to dig them out with a hot knife." The leeches created a series of indented scars on Lolo's legs.
In his book "Dreams From My Father," Obama asked Lolo, "Have you ever seen a man killed?"
Lolo was surprised by the question.
"Have you?" Obama asked again.
"Yes."
"Was it bloody?"
"Yes."
Obama thought for a moment. "Why was the man killed?"
Lolo answered, "Because he was weak. That's usually enough. Men take advantage of weakness in other men. They're just like countries in that way. The strong man takes the weak man's land. He makes the weak man work in his field. If the weak man's woman is pretty, the strong man will take her." Lolo paused, then asked his young stepson, "Which would you rather be?"
Obama didn't answer the question.
Lolo finally remarked, "Better to be strong."
Philosophers around the world could devote volumes to that simple question. But as Obama prepares to visit Indonesia in March, some facts are worth pondering.
Fact No. 1: Barack Obama, the little boy who used to live in Jakarta, is one of the most powerful men in the world. Obama now lives in the White House, not the little house in Menteng. And he is going to revisit the home of his youth to sign a "strategic partnership" with Indonesia.
Fact No. 2: New Guinea is now called Papua. Its western part is legally a part of Indonesia since the controversial UN-approved Act of Free Choice in 1969, in which 1,054 Papuans, hand-picked by Jakarta, voted unanimously to join Indonesia. Papua, to use Lolo's words, is still the weak man under Indonesian rule.
Human rights abuses by Indonesian security forces remain common. Peaceful protesters continue to receive long prison sentences. Papua is off-limits to most independent outside observers. And it remains poor and underdeveloped, despite the fact that it has abundant natural resources, including natural gas, minerals and timber. Papua has the worst poverty in Indonesia, with more than 80 percent of households living below the poverty line. Papua has the biggest HIV problem in the country, with infection rates 15 times the national average.
Fact No. 3: Indonesia's president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, also has a close connection to Papua. Indonesia's military commander in Papua in the late 1960s was Brig. Gen. Sarwo Edhie Wibowo, who had previously led a bloody military campaign against Indonesian communists in Java. He would later become the father-in-law of a young Army captain named Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
The human rights situation in Papua remains poor. Human Rights Watch has for many years urged the Indonesian government to stop prosecuting peaceful Papuan protesters. We have asked the government to open Papua to international journalists, human rights researchers and other independent observers. If all is well in Papua, as the government claims, why do the Indonesian police and military require a surat jalan, or "walking permit," for any foreigner visiting Papua?
Since the 1970s, political tensions and abuses by the Indonesian security forces have helped create a climate of fear in Papua. This continues to the present. Impunity remains a huge problem. For example, in November 2001, the Indonesian Army's Special Forces (Kopassus) kidnapped and killed Papuan separatist leader Theys Eluay in Jayapura. The then-commander of Kopassus in Papua, Lt. Col. Hartomo, denied involvement in the murder. But international outrage prompted the Indonesian Military Police to investigate.
In 2003, a court in Surabaya found seven Kopassus soldiers and officers, including Lt. Col. Hartomo, guilty of mistreatment and battery leading to Eluay's death, but crucially not of murder. Sentences served by the seven ranged from two to three and a half years. But Hartomo was not discharged from the Army. Instead, he is now Col. Hartomo, the head of Kopassus Group 1 in Serang, just a three-hour drive from Jakarta.
More than 130 people are currently imprisoned throughout Indonesia for peaceful expression, particularly in Papua and the Moluccas. Some have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including Papuan activist Filep Karma, who is serving a 15-year sentence for raising the Papuan Morning Star flag in December 2004 in Jayapura. School teacher Johan Teterisa is serving 15 years for raising the Southern Moluccas Republic flag in June 2007 in Ambon.
For decades, the Indonesian authorities have treated the raising of the Morning Star and Southern Moluccas Republic flags as a crime because they are pro-independence symbols. Article 6 of Government Regulation No. 77/2007 prohibits the display of the Morning Star flag in Papua, as well as the South Maluku Republic flag in Ambon, and the Crescent Moon flag in Aceh. But these prosecutions and the laws violate internationally protected rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia ratified in 2006.
As one who knows Indonesia, the long history of conflict in Papua, which impacted his stepfather, and how important basic freedoms are to the struggle of a minority for equality and access to political power, President Obama is the right man at the right time to ask the Indonesian government to release all prisoners who have peacefully exercised their rights to freedom of expression and assembly and to repeal laws that criminalize speech. He can explain how tolerance of dissent is fundamental to a democracy.
If Obama doesn't act on Papua, perhaps it will be because young Obama grew up in Jakarta, not in Papua. If he had, he would likely see the Papuan question from the point of view of the "weak man," of a victim. But if Obama does act, maybe then in Indonesia there will be a recognition that a strong man is one who assists the weak.
Kiai Carita10:24 AM February 22, 2010
Indonesia's Constitution states that "independence is the right of every nation" ...but sadly, not the nation of Papua! To uphold its dignity Indonesia should do much more to acknowledge human rights in Papua. This is a very courageous article from Andreas Harsono. Hope the Globe publishes more of his opinions! Stop colonialism in Papua NOW!
Published in: The Jakarta Globe
February 21, 2010
In Jakarta in the late 1960s, a young Barack Obama noticed his stepfather's great unease and silence about his one-year military service in New Guinea. Lolo Soetoro, his stepfather, did not like to talk about his time there. He did tell young Barack about how leeches got into his boots in New Guinea's jungles. "They crawled inside your army boots while you're hiking through the swamps. At night, when you take off your socks, they're stuck there, fat with blood. You sprinkle salt on them and they die, but you still have to dig them out with a hot knife." The leeches created a series of indented scars on Lolo's legs.
In his book "Dreams From My Father," Obama asked Lolo, "Have you ever seen a man killed?"
Lolo was surprised by the question.
"Have you?" Obama asked again.
"Yes."
"Was it bloody?"
"Yes."
Obama thought for a moment. "Why was the man killed?"
Lolo answered, "Because he was weak. That's usually enough. Men take advantage of weakness in other men. They're just like countries in that way. The strong man takes the weak man's land. He makes the weak man work in his field. If the weak man's woman is pretty, the strong man will take her." Lolo paused, then asked his young stepson, "Which would you rather be?"
Obama didn't answer the question.
Lolo finally remarked, "Better to be strong."
Philosophers around the world could devote volumes to that simple question. But as Obama prepares to visit Indonesia in March, some facts are worth pondering.
Fact No. 1: Barack Obama, the little boy who used to live in Jakarta, is one of the most powerful men in the world. Obama now lives in the White House, not the little house in Menteng. And he is going to revisit the home of his youth to sign a "strategic partnership" with Indonesia.
Fact No. 2: New Guinea is now called Papua. Its western part is legally a part of Indonesia since the controversial UN-approved Act of Free Choice in 1969, in which 1,054 Papuans, hand-picked by Jakarta, voted unanimously to join Indonesia. Papua, to use Lolo's words, is still the weak man under Indonesian rule.
Human rights abuses by Indonesian security forces remain common. Peaceful protesters continue to receive long prison sentences. Papua is off-limits to most independent outside observers. And it remains poor and underdeveloped, despite the fact that it has abundant natural resources, including natural gas, minerals and timber. Papua has the worst poverty in Indonesia, with more than 80 percent of households living below the poverty line. Papua has the biggest HIV problem in the country, with infection rates 15 times the national average.
Fact No. 3: Indonesia's president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, also has a close connection to Papua. Indonesia's military commander in Papua in the late 1960s was Brig. Gen. Sarwo Edhie Wibowo, who had previously led a bloody military campaign against Indonesian communists in Java. He would later become the father-in-law of a young Army captain named Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
The human rights situation in Papua remains poor. Human Rights Watch has for many years urged the Indonesian government to stop prosecuting peaceful Papuan protesters. We have asked the government to open Papua to international journalists, human rights researchers and other independent observers. If all is well in Papua, as the government claims, why do the Indonesian police and military require a surat jalan, or "walking permit," for any foreigner visiting Papua?
Since the 1970s, political tensions and abuses by the Indonesian security forces have helped create a climate of fear in Papua. This continues to the present. Impunity remains a huge problem. For example, in November 2001, the Indonesian Army's Special Forces (Kopassus) kidnapped and killed Papuan separatist leader Theys Eluay in Jayapura. The then-commander of Kopassus in Papua, Lt. Col. Hartomo, denied involvement in the murder. But international outrage prompted the Indonesian Military Police to investigate.
In 2003, a court in Surabaya found seven Kopassus soldiers and officers, including Lt. Col. Hartomo, guilty of mistreatment and battery leading to Eluay's death, but crucially not of murder. Sentences served by the seven ranged from two to three and a half years. But Hartomo was not discharged from the Army. Instead, he is now Col. Hartomo, the head of Kopassus Group 1 in Serang, just a three-hour drive from Jakarta.
More than 130 people are currently imprisoned throughout Indonesia for peaceful expression, particularly in Papua and the Moluccas. Some have been sentenced to lengthy prison terms, including Papuan activist Filep Karma, who is serving a 15-year sentence for raising the Papuan Morning Star flag in December 2004 in Jayapura. School teacher Johan Teterisa is serving 15 years for raising the Southern Moluccas Republic flag in June 2007 in Ambon.
For decades, the Indonesian authorities have treated the raising of the Morning Star and Southern Moluccas Republic flags as a crime because they are pro-independence symbols. Article 6 of Government Regulation No. 77/2007 prohibits the display of the Morning Star flag in Papua, as well as the South Maluku Republic flag in Ambon, and the Crescent Moon flag in Aceh. But these prosecutions and the laws violate internationally protected rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia ratified in 2006.
As one who knows Indonesia, the long history of conflict in Papua, which impacted his stepfather, and how important basic freedoms are to the struggle of a minority for equality and access to political power, President Obama is the right man at the right time to ask the Indonesian government to release all prisoners who have peacefully exercised their rights to freedom of expression and assembly and to repeal laws that criminalize speech. He can explain how tolerance of dissent is fundamental to a democracy.
If Obama doesn't act on Papua, perhaps it will be because young Obama grew up in Jakarta, not in Papua. If he had, he would likely see the Papuan question from the point of view of the "weak man," of a victim. But if Obama does act, maybe then in Indonesia there will be a recognition that a strong man is one who assists the weak.
Kiai Carita10:24 AM February 22, 2010
Indonesia's Constitution states that "independence is the right of every nation" ...but sadly, not the nation of Papua! To uphold its dignity Indonesia should do much more to acknowledge human rights in Papua. This is a very courageous article from Andreas Harsono. Hope the Globe publishes more of his opinions! Stop colonialism in Papua NOW!
Autonomy and what lies ahead for West Papua
Supporters of self-determination with the Morning Star, the West Papuan liberation flag. Photo: PMC
Pacific Scoop:
Opinion – The National in Port Moresby
When Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono visits Australia and Papua New Guinea in two weeks’ time, apart from the very many matters of mutual bilateral concerns, will PNG dare raise the matter of autonomy for the mostly Melanesian people of West Papua?
Or is to be considered an internal Indonesian affair?
Not an original question at all but new developments in Papua New Guinea with regards to Bougainville and the very idea of autonomy give it an entirely new perspective.
Autonomy is not something PNG much likes to proselytise to the world, much less Indonesia when it itself has problems dealing with exactly the same issue.
For a long time Papua New Guineans, ordinary citizens as well as policy makers, were sympathetic to the cry by their mostly Melanesian brethren on the Indonesian half of the island of New Guinea for self-government and independence.
Many did not much care for the Act of Free Choice which ceded West Papua to Indonesia, purportedly with the concurrence of the chiefs and leaders of the land. This Act, which was signed in New York, has been referred to more popularly in PNG as the “act of no choice”.
While the sentiments remain, reality intrudes.
Indonesia boasts 232 million people, the world’s fourth most populous country after China, India and the United States.
Two religions
Papua New Guinea’s population of 6.2 million would fit into one city in Indonesia. It is the world’s largest Muslim nation while PNG is totally Christian – two religions that are not well known for good neighbourly relations.
PNG and Indonesia share similar problems of governing a widely scattered and ethnically diversified population. Now they share the problem of division and have both resorted to reluctantly handing out autonomy as a way to resolve the persistent and rebellious push for self-government.
At about the same time, some 10,000 people in the Bougainville town of Arawa celebrated the signing of the autonomy package for the trouble-torn province of Papua New Guinea on August 30, 2001, on the western tip of the island of New Guinea there was a similar gathering to celebrate a similar gesture from the Indonesian government for its province of West Papua.
That these celebrations fell on the same month and that the declarations of autonomous governments were made in the same year in both instances appears for all intent and purpose to be purely coincidental.
Other coincidental similarities make these occasions quite weird. Both governments of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea were granting autonomy to their respective provinces for the first time ever.
Both were doing so most reluctantly, under tremendous international and domestic pressure and following many years of bloody conflict.
The history of insurrection in both Bougainville and West Papua date back to the 1950s and while Bougainville’s was subdued and eventually subsumed under the independent state of Papua New Guinea before re-exerting itself in April 1987, the West Papua movement for self-government and independence has been controversial ever since the Act of Free Choice in 1969.
Papuan autonomy
Papua New Guineans will be more familiar with what their government has offered Bougainville under the terms of autonomy. We are not so versed with the terms of the West Papua autonomy.
Bougainville was to establish its own police force, judiciary, taxation regime, commercial bank and courts.
The PNG government would retain control over Defence and Foreign Affairs, although its military would largely be excluded from the island.
A similar proposal containing identical provisions went to the Indonesian government but by the reckoning of many West Papuans, the version passed by the Indonesian government in November 2001 as Law No. 21 was so watered down it did not resemble the original at all.
While the Bougainville Autonomous Government has taken off reasonably smoothly, albeit with teething problems, West Papua autonomy has already been declared a failure by the Papua Traditional Council and by its powerful youth council.
While Melanesian Indonesians might have a big case for self-determination and while Papua New Guineans might be sympathetic, the PNG government seems hardly to be in a position to preach at big brother.
Editorial published in The National, 23 February 2010
Original National url
Pacific Scoop:
Opinion – The National in Port Moresby
When Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono visits Australia and Papua New Guinea in two weeks’ time, apart from the very many matters of mutual bilateral concerns, will PNG dare raise the matter of autonomy for the mostly Melanesian people of West Papua?
Or is to be considered an internal Indonesian affair?
Not an original question at all but new developments in Papua New Guinea with regards to Bougainville and the very idea of autonomy give it an entirely new perspective.
Autonomy is not something PNG much likes to proselytise to the world, much less Indonesia when it itself has problems dealing with exactly the same issue.
For a long time Papua New Guineans, ordinary citizens as well as policy makers, were sympathetic to the cry by their mostly Melanesian brethren on the Indonesian half of the island of New Guinea for self-government and independence.
Many did not much care for the Act of Free Choice which ceded West Papua to Indonesia, purportedly with the concurrence of the chiefs and leaders of the land. This Act, which was signed in New York, has been referred to more popularly in PNG as the “act of no choice”.
While the sentiments remain, reality intrudes.
Indonesia boasts 232 million people, the world’s fourth most populous country after China, India and the United States.
Two religions
Papua New Guinea’s population of 6.2 million would fit into one city in Indonesia. It is the world’s largest Muslim nation while PNG is totally Christian – two religions that are not well known for good neighbourly relations.
PNG and Indonesia share similar problems of governing a widely scattered and ethnically diversified population. Now they share the problem of division and have both resorted to reluctantly handing out autonomy as a way to resolve the persistent and rebellious push for self-government.
At about the same time, some 10,000 people in the Bougainville town of Arawa celebrated the signing of the autonomy package for the trouble-torn province of Papua New Guinea on August 30, 2001, on the western tip of the island of New Guinea there was a similar gathering to celebrate a similar gesture from the Indonesian government for its province of West Papua.
That these celebrations fell on the same month and that the declarations of autonomous governments were made in the same year in both instances appears for all intent and purpose to be purely coincidental.
Other coincidental similarities make these occasions quite weird. Both governments of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea were granting autonomy to their respective provinces for the first time ever.
Both were doing so most reluctantly, under tremendous international and domestic pressure and following many years of bloody conflict.
The history of insurrection in both Bougainville and West Papua date back to the 1950s and while Bougainville’s was subdued and eventually subsumed under the independent state of Papua New Guinea before re-exerting itself in April 1987, the West Papua movement for self-government and independence has been controversial ever since the Act of Free Choice in 1969.
Papuan autonomy
Papua New Guineans will be more familiar with what their government has offered Bougainville under the terms of autonomy. We are not so versed with the terms of the West Papua autonomy.
Bougainville was to establish its own police force, judiciary, taxation regime, commercial bank and courts.
The PNG government would retain control over Defence and Foreign Affairs, although its military would largely be excluded from the island.
A similar proposal containing identical provisions went to the Indonesian government but by the reckoning of many West Papuans, the version passed by the Indonesian government in November 2001 as Law No. 21 was so watered down it did not resemble the original at all.
While the Bougainville Autonomous Government has taken off reasonably smoothly, albeit with teething problems, West Papua autonomy has already been declared a failure by the Papua Traditional Council and by its powerful youth council.
While Melanesian Indonesians might have a big case for self-determination and while Papua New Guineans might be sympathetic, the PNG government seems hardly to be in a position to preach at big brother.
Editorial published in The National, 23 February 2010
Original National url
West Papuan rights lawyer calls for peaceful dialogue with Jakarta
Posted at 05:41 on 25 February, 2010 UTC
A prominent West Papuan human rights lawyer is using a speaking tour of Australia to promote the need for a peaceful solution to problems in Indonesia’s troubled Papua region.
Yan Christian Warinussy, who is the winner of Canada’s John Humphrey Freedom Award in 2005 for his promotion of human rights and democracy, says the rights situation in Papua has been left to deteriorate far too long.
The Manokwari-based lawyer says the Special Autonomy status granted to Papua by Indonesia in 2001 has proven a failure while the heavy militarisation of the region has worsened the security situation.
Mr Warinussy says dialogue between Jakarta and Papuan representatives must take place.
“The human rights situation in West Papua is not good until now. The Special Autonomy, we cannot use that to solve the problem. We need to make peaceful dialogue between Indonesia and Papua - to think again, to plan again, to make sure.”
Yan Christian Warinussy
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
A prominent West Papuan human rights lawyer is using a speaking tour of Australia to promote the need for a peaceful solution to problems in Indonesia’s troubled Papua region.
Yan Christian Warinussy, who is the winner of Canada’s John Humphrey Freedom Award in 2005 for his promotion of human rights and democracy, says the rights situation in Papua has been left to deteriorate far too long.
The Manokwari-based lawyer says the Special Autonomy status granted to Papua by Indonesia in 2001 has proven a failure while the heavy militarisation of the region has worsened the security situation.
Mr Warinussy says dialogue between Jakarta and Papuan representatives must take place.
“The human rights situation in West Papua is not good until now. The Special Autonomy, we cannot use that to solve the problem. We need to make peaceful dialogue between Indonesia and Papua - to think again, to plan again, to make sure.”
Yan Christian Warinussy
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
Russia to launch satelite in Papua
Russia is keen on building the satellite launching base in Biak Island.
Kamis, 25 Februari 2010, 15:10 WIBElin Yunita Kristanti, Bayu Galih
(AP Photo/Kyodo News)
VIVAnews - The Russian Ambassador to Indonesia, Alexander A Ivanov, held talks with the Indonesian Vice President Boediono on the planned Russian satellite launching project in Biak, Papua.
Ivanov urged Indonesia to speed up the development of the satellite launching base.
"The Russian Ambassador discussed about the acceleration of the satellite launcher development in Biak Island," the spokesperson of Vice President Boediono, Yopie Hidayat, said today, Feb 25.
Russia, said Yopie, is keen on building the satellite launching base in Biak Island.
"Many experts from Lapan (Indonesian Institute of Aeronatics and Space) learn about satellites in Russia. It is also expected that Indonesia may build up its aeronatics sector," said Yopie.
He said that the copyrights issue has been one of the obstacles in the project. "Our concerns now are on technical barriers," said Yopie
Kamis, 25 Februari 2010, 15:10 WIBElin Yunita Kristanti, Bayu Galih
(AP Photo/Kyodo News)
VIVAnews - The Russian Ambassador to Indonesia, Alexander A Ivanov, held talks with the Indonesian Vice President Boediono on the planned Russian satellite launching project in Biak, Papua.
Ivanov urged Indonesia to speed up the development of the satellite launching base.
"The Russian Ambassador discussed about the acceleration of the satellite launcher development in Biak Island," the spokesperson of Vice President Boediono, Yopie Hidayat, said today, Feb 25.
Russia, said Yopie, is keen on building the satellite launching base in Biak Island.
"Many experts from Lapan (Indonesian Institute of Aeronatics and Space) learn about satellites in Russia. It is also expected that Indonesia may build up its aeronatics sector," said Yopie.
He said that the copyrights issue has been one of the obstacles in the project. "Our concerns now are on technical barriers," said Yopie
Indonesian president ‘must woo Pacific for Papua’s sake’, say analysts
Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono faces challenges on his Papua New Guinea visit after Australia next month. Photo: ETAN
Pacific Scoop:
By Lilian Budianto in Jakarta
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should use his visit to Papua New Guinea next month to discuss ways to work with Pacific nations to solve the issue of Papuan separatism, say analysts.
“Foreign countries scrutinise Indonesia over how it could solve the insurgency problem because they regard Papua as an international concern,” said Adriana Elisabeth, a researcher from the Indonesian Institute for Sciences (LIPI).
“The more we shut down, the more suspicious they are and it doesn’t help in efforts to embrace Papua.”
She said Indonesia had to open up and cooperate with other countries to solve the Papuan issue because the nature of the problem partly arose from an international resolution.
Then Western New Guinea became part of Indonesia based on the 1969 Act of Free Choice, which is not recognised by many Papuan people.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will visit Port Moresby from March 11-12 after visiting Australia from March 8-11.
LIPI has prepared a roadmap on how to solve the Papuan issue, including a plan to conduct an international conference, but it has not yet been implemented due to the government’s resistance to
internationalise the issue.
‘Domestic issue’
The Foreign Ministry said that Papua was a “domestic issue” and should not see international interference.
A number of civil society groups in Papua New Guinea and other Pacific nations continue to support the Papuan independence movement because of shared Melanesian roots.
Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said the President would seek to enhance cooperation with Pacific countries during his visit to Papua New Guinea and Australia, although stopped short of saying what areas
could be enhanced.
“Jakarta would seek to project its policy on the Southwest Pacific during the visit. because it has strategic value [for Jakarta] regarding separatism,” said Marty during a visit to The Jakarta Post.
Sociologist Tamrin Amal Tomagola said support for Papuan independence was still strong among Pacific Islands countries despite waning support elsewhere.
Choirul Anam, deputy executive director for Human Rights Working Group, said Jakarta had to strengthen its diplomacy over the Papua issue because its freedom movement gained wide international support such
as when Timor-Leste sought independence.
Pacific Scoop:
By Lilian Budianto in Jakarta
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should use his visit to Papua New Guinea next month to discuss ways to work with Pacific nations to solve the issue of Papuan separatism, say analysts.
“Foreign countries scrutinise Indonesia over how it could solve the insurgency problem because they regard Papua as an international concern,” said Adriana Elisabeth, a researcher from the Indonesian Institute for Sciences (LIPI).
“The more we shut down, the more suspicious they are and it doesn’t help in efforts to embrace Papua.”
She said Indonesia had to open up and cooperate with other countries to solve the Papuan issue because the nature of the problem partly arose from an international resolution.
Then Western New Guinea became part of Indonesia based on the 1969 Act of Free Choice, which is not recognised by many Papuan people.
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will visit Port Moresby from March 11-12 after visiting Australia from March 8-11.
LIPI has prepared a roadmap on how to solve the Papuan issue, including a plan to conduct an international conference, but it has not yet been implemented due to the government’s resistance to
internationalise the issue.
‘Domestic issue’
The Foreign Ministry said that Papua was a “domestic issue” and should not see international interference.
A number of civil society groups in Papua New Guinea and other Pacific nations continue to support the Papuan independence movement because of shared Melanesian roots.
Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa said the President would seek to enhance cooperation with Pacific countries during his visit to Papua New Guinea and Australia, although stopped short of saying what areas
could be enhanced.
“Jakarta would seek to project its policy on the Southwest Pacific during the visit. because it has strategic value [for Jakarta] regarding separatism,” said Marty during a visit to The Jakarta Post.
Sociologist Tamrin Amal Tomagola said support for Papuan independence was still strong among Pacific Islands countries despite waning support elsewhere.
Choirul Anam, deputy executive director for Human Rights Working Group, said Jakarta had to strengthen its diplomacy over the Papua issue because its freedom movement gained wide international support such
as when Timor-Leste sought independence.
Renewed call to probe 2004 death of Australian journalist in Papua
Posted at 22:24 on 26 February, 2010 UTC
There are calls to investigate again the death of an Australian journalist filming Papuan guerrillas.
Mark Worth, who was 45, was found dead in a hotel room in Sentani in Papua province in mid-January 2004.
Pneumonia was reported as the cause of death.
He died two days after the Australian Broadcasting Corporation announced that his documentary, Land of the Morning Star, would premier on Australian screens in February 2004.
But his friends, including a former Papuan politician Clemence Runawery, say his death was suspicious.
The plea for a fresh probe comes as Papuan leaders prepare to raise their plight with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who visits Papua New Guinea before heading to Australia next month.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
There are calls to investigate again the death of an Australian journalist filming Papuan guerrillas.
Mark Worth, who was 45, was found dead in a hotel room in Sentani in Papua province in mid-January 2004.
Pneumonia was reported as the cause of death.
He died two days after the Australian Broadcasting Corporation announced that his documentary, Land of the Morning Star, would premier on Australian screens in February 2004.
But his friends, including a former Papuan politician Clemence Runawery, say his death was suspicious.
The plea for a fresh probe comes as Papuan leaders prepare to raise their plight with Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who visits Papua New Guinea before heading to Australia next month.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
HRW wants Obama to press Jakarta over rights
JAKARTA POST
Lilian Budianto , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Sat, 02/27/2010 12:05 PM | Headlines
Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on US President Barack Obama to press Indonesia over rights progress, military reform and religious freedom during his visit to Jakarta next month.
The New York-based rights watchdog sent an 11-page letter to President Obama on Thursday.
During his visit next month, Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono are slated to launch a comprehensive partnership covering a wide range of issues from education and climate change to military cooperation.
"We urge *Obama* to seize this opportunity to reaffirm that human rights and the rule of law are essential pillars of US engagement in Indonesia," says Kenneth Roth, HRW executive director said in a letter made public on the group's website.
"We ask that you do this by publicly calling for the Indonesian government to make critical human rights improvements and by implementing the Comprehensive Partnership in ways that will ensure that cooperation with the United States leads to improvements, rather than setbacks, in Indonesia's human rights record."
Although acknowledging improvements Indonesia has made in holding up rights values since the political reform in 1998, HRW says Jakarta has fallen behind international standards of freedom of expression, religious freedom and enforcing justice for victims of rights abuses. The letter mentioned a list of rights abuse cases across the archipelago, including treatment of religious minority group Ahmadiyah and political prisoners in Papua.
It also mentioned a list of army generals and high-ranking officials, including Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, Maj. Gen. Pramono Edi Wibowo and Col. Tri Hartomo, who retain senior positions in the Defense Ministry and the Army's Special Forces (Kopassus) despite their tainted rights records.
Riefqi Muna, a defense researcher with Indonesian Institute of Sciences, said chances were high that the Obama administration might take a softer stance on calling Jakarta to hold up its rights commitment because of its own tainted image and to safeguard economic benefits amid the economic downturn.
"The US is involved in unpopular wars against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which have claimed the lives of many civilians. The US cannot press on Indonesia to heed rights values when they have failed to do so," he said.
Washington waived arms embargo on Jakarta in 2005-2006, but it continues to ban Kopassus from receiving military training and financing from the US government. Kopassus is allegedly responsible for a number of atrocities in Papua, Aceh and Timor Leste as well as in Jakarta.
"Jakarta has to finish up its homework to bring rights perpetrators to court or our bilateral ties will continue to be jeopardized," said Rafendi Djamin, executive director of Jakarta-based Human Rights Working Group. "With the new partnership, neither the US nor Indonesia can afford to strain their ties over repeated calls for justice to be served."
Lilian Budianto , The Jakarta Post , Jakarta | Sat, 02/27/2010 12:05 PM | Headlines
Human Rights Watch (HRW) called on US President Barack Obama to press Indonesia over rights progress, military reform and religious freedom during his visit to Jakarta next month.
The New York-based rights watchdog sent an 11-page letter to President Obama on Thursday.
During his visit next month, Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono are slated to launch a comprehensive partnership covering a wide range of issues from education and climate change to military cooperation.
"We urge *Obama* to seize this opportunity to reaffirm that human rights and the rule of law are essential pillars of US engagement in Indonesia," says Kenneth Roth, HRW executive director said in a letter made public on the group's website.
"We ask that you do this by publicly calling for the Indonesian government to make critical human rights improvements and by implementing the Comprehensive Partnership in ways that will ensure that cooperation with the United States leads to improvements, rather than setbacks, in Indonesia's human rights record."
Although acknowledging improvements Indonesia has made in holding up rights values since the political reform in 1998, HRW says Jakarta has fallen behind international standards of freedom of expression, religious freedom and enforcing justice for victims of rights abuses. The letter mentioned a list of rights abuse cases across the archipelago, including treatment of religious minority group Ahmadiyah and political prisoners in Papua.
It also mentioned a list of army generals and high-ranking officials, including Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, Maj. Gen. Pramono Edi Wibowo and Col. Tri Hartomo, who retain senior positions in the Defense Ministry and the Army's Special Forces (Kopassus) despite their tainted rights records.
Riefqi Muna, a defense researcher with Indonesian Institute of Sciences, said chances were high that the Obama administration might take a softer stance on calling Jakarta to hold up its rights commitment because of its own tainted image and to safeguard economic benefits amid the economic downturn.
"The US is involved in unpopular wars against terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which have claimed the lives of many civilians. The US cannot press on Indonesia to heed rights values when they have failed to do so," he said.
Washington waived arms embargo on Jakarta in 2005-2006, but it continues to ban Kopassus from receiving military training and financing from the US government. Kopassus is allegedly responsible for a number of atrocities in Papua, Aceh and Timor Leste as well as in Jakarta.
"Jakarta has to finish up its homework to bring rights perpetrators to court or our bilateral ties will continue to be jeopardized," said Rafendi Djamin, executive director of Jakarta-based Human Rights Working Group. "With the new partnership, neither the US nor Indonesia can afford to strain their ties over repeated calls for justice to be served."
AWPA calls Rudd toRaise West Papua Issue with Indonesia
Press Release – Australia West Papua Association
The Australia West Papua Association in Sydney has written an open letter to Prime Minister Rudd (below) asking that he raise the human rights situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President.AWPA Calls On Prime Minister Rudd To Raise West Papua With The Indonesian President During His Visit To Australia
The Australia West Papua Association in Sydney has written an open letter to Prime Minister Rudd (below) asking that he raise the human rights situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President.
Joe Collins of AWPA said “we understand that it is in the interests of the Australian Government to have good relations and friendship with Jakarta and to have a stable region to our north, but good relations with Jakarta should not be at the expense of the West Papuan people who are struggling for their right to self-determination”
AWPA believes the situation in West Papua is deteriorating. Since last July there have been 14 incidents of shootings around the Freeport copper and gold mine including one on the 11 July in which Australian mine technician Drew Grant was killed.
AWPA believes that Australia can contribute greatly to peace and stability in West Papua by supporting the West Papuan people in capacity building in the fields of health, education and in attaining economic security.
We are calling on the Prime Minister to urge the Indonesian President to,
release all West Papuan political prisoners arrested for simply taking part in peaceful rallies which is their democratic right
As a sign of good faith to the West Papuan people control the security forces in West Papua, urging that the security forces halt their intimidation of human rights defenders and peaceful demonstrators as a way of avoiding further escalation of the situation and avoiding possible bloodshed.
As the West Papuan people are calling for dialogue with the Indonesian Government to try and solve the many issues of concern in West Papua. AWPA urges you to encourage the Indonesian President to dialogue with genuine representatives of the West Papuan people
And finally the Australia West Papua Association urges you to cease all ties between the Australian military and the Indonesian special forces unit Kopassus, until such time that Indonesian military personnel involved in past human rights abuses are brought to justice and the culture of the Indonesian military becomes of an acceptable standard to both the Australian military and the Australian people.
We also encourage the government to send a cross -parliamentary delegation to visit West Papua to investigate the human rights situation in the territory.
Open letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
Australia West Papua Association
PO Box 28, Spit Junction, Sydney, Australia 2088
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra
ACT 2600
1 March 2010
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing to urge you to raise the human rights situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President during his visit to Australia in March. AWPA believes the situation in West Papua is deteriorating. Since last July there have been 14 incidents of shootings around the Freeport copper and gold mine including one on the 11 July in which Australian mine technician Drew Grant was killed.
Although the Indonesian military have tried to blame the Free Papua Movement (OPM) for the ambushes, the OPM has denied any involvement in the shootings. The leader of the OPM in the area, Kelly Kwalik was killed by the Indonesian security forces on the 16 December, nevertheless, since his death another attack occurred near the mine on the 24 January in which nine people were injured. Many analysts suspect the shootings around Freeport are part of a turf war between the police and military about whom should receive payments from Freeport for protecting the mine.
An AFP report dated the 22 March 2009 stated that
“The Arizona-based company said its local subsidiary paid “less than” 1.6 million dollars through wire transfers and cheques in 2008 to provide a “monthly allowance” to police and soldiers at and around the Grasberg mine. The disclosure, made in response to questions from AFP, means the company continues to pay soldiers in contravention of a series of legal measures aimed at stopping military units working as paid protection, rights activists said”
Numerous reports have documented the military’s involvement in resource extraction in West Papua including their involvement in illegal logging and receiving protection fees paid by resource companies.
A report by researchers at the University of Indonesia and the International NGO Forum for Indonesian Development said “Indonesia’s military is deeply involved in illegal logging that threatens some of the world’s largest remaining forest, university researchers said Friday. Officials in the military and police covertly finance, coordinate or enable logging rackets in vast jungle, the second largest in the world after the Amazon”.
We could go on ad infinitum about reports of the security forces’ involvement in resource extraction and human rights abuses in West Papua. However, the specific questions we are asking is why are we involved in training and exercising with the Indonesian military? What benefits have the West Papuan people gained by our cooperation with the Indonesian security forces?
We understand that it is in the interests of the Australian Government to have good relations and friendship with Jakarta and to have a stable region to our north, but good relations with Jakarta should not be at the expense of the West Papuan people who are struggling for their right to “self-determination”. In fact, it is the policies of the Indonesian Government, compounded by the actions of the Indonesian security forces which will lead to the very instability the Australian Government is trying to avoid.
Although Indonesia has made great progress towards democracy in recent years, unfortunately this has not translated to an improvement in the human rights situation in West Papua. There are ongoing human rights abuses and a large number of political prisoners jailed simply because they raised the West Papuan national flag.
We would like to thank your government for the aid already given in support of HIV/AIDS programs in West Papua but we believe more could be done and West Papua should be an area of priority in our foreign aid contributions. West Papua is rich in natural resources but the West Papuan people have one of the poorest health standards in the archipelago. Although the Indonesian government has established health centers in the majority of sub-districts in West Papua, these centers lack properly trained staff ,medicines , diagnoses of illness and accountability of causes of death particularly in the more remote areas of the territory.
We believe that Australia can contribute greatly to peace and stability in West Papua by supporting the West Papuan people in capacity building in the fields of health, education and in attaining economic security.
AWPA urges you to raise the deteriorating situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President during your discussions with him on his visit to Australia.
We ask you to urge the Indonesian President to,
release all West Papuan political prisoners arrested for simply taking part in peaceful rallies which is their democratic right
as a sign of good faith to the West Papuan people control the security forces in West Papua, urging that the security forces halt their intimidation of human rights defenders and peaceful demonstrators as a way of avoiding further escalation of the situation and avoiding possible bloodshed.
As the West Papuan people are calling for dialogue with the Indonesian Government to try and solve the many issues of concern in West Papua. AWPA urges you to encourage the Indonesian President to dialogue with genuine representatives of the West Papuan people
And finally the Australia West Papua Association urges you to cease all ties between the Australian military and the Indonesian special forces unit Kopassus, until such time that Indonesian military personnel involved in past human rights abuses are brought to justice and the culture of the Indonesian military becomes of an acceptable standard to both the Australian military and the Australian people.
We also encourage the government to send a cross -parliamentary delegation to visit West Papua to investigate the human rights situation in the territory.
Yours sincerely
Joe Collins
AWPA (Sydney)
ENDS
The Australia West Papua Association in Sydney has written an open letter to Prime Minister Rudd (below) asking that he raise the human rights situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President.AWPA Calls On Prime Minister Rudd To Raise West Papua With The Indonesian President During His Visit To Australia
The Australia West Papua Association in Sydney has written an open letter to Prime Minister Rudd (below) asking that he raise the human rights situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President.
Joe Collins of AWPA said “we understand that it is in the interests of the Australian Government to have good relations and friendship with Jakarta and to have a stable region to our north, but good relations with Jakarta should not be at the expense of the West Papuan people who are struggling for their right to self-determination”
AWPA believes the situation in West Papua is deteriorating. Since last July there have been 14 incidents of shootings around the Freeport copper and gold mine including one on the 11 July in which Australian mine technician Drew Grant was killed.
AWPA believes that Australia can contribute greatly to peace and stability in West Papua by supporting the West Papuan people in capacity building in the fields of health, education and in attaining economic security.
We are calling on the Prime Minister to urge the Indonesian President to,
release all West Papuan political prisoners arrested for simply taking part in peaceful rallies which is their democratic right
As a sign of good faith to the West Papuan people control the security forces in West Papua, urging that the security forces halt their intimidation of human rights defenders and peaceful demonstrators as a way of avoiding further escalation of the situation and avoiding possible bloodshed.
As the West Papuan people are calling for dialogue with the Indonesian Government to try and solve the many issues of concern in West Papua. AWPA urges you to encourage the Indonesian President to dialogue with genuine representatives of the West Papuan people
And finally the Australia West Papua Association urges you to cease all ties between the Australian military and the Indonesian special forces unit Kopassus, until such time that Indonesian military personnel involved in past human rights abuses are brought to justice and the culture of the Indonesian military becomes of an acceptable standard to both the Australian military and the Australian people.
We also encourage the government to send a cross -parliamentary delegation to visit West Papua to investigate the human rights situation in the territory.
Open letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
Australia West Papua Association
PO Box 28, Spit Junction, Sydney, Australia 2088
The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra
ACT 2600
1 March 2010
Dear Prime Minister,
We are writing to urge you to raise the human rights situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President during his visit to Australia in March. AWPA believes the situation in West Papua is deteriorating. Since last July there have been 14 incidents of shootings around the Freeport copper and gold mine including one on the 11 July in which Australian mine technician Drew Grant was killed.
Although the Indonesian military have tried to blame the Free Papua Movement (OPM) for the ambushes, the OPM has denied any involvement in the shootings. The leader of the OPM in the area, Kelly Kwalik was killed by the Indonesian security forces on the 16 December, nevertheless, since his death another attack occurred near the mine on the 24 January in which nine people were injured. Many analysts suspect the shootings around Freeport are part of a turf war between the police and military about whom should receive payments from Freeport for protecting the mine.
An AFP report dated the 22 March 2009 stated that
“The Arizona-based company said its local subsidiary paid “less than” 1.6 million dollars through wire transfers and cheques in 2008 to provide a “monthly allowance” to police and soldiers at and around the Grasberg mine. The disclosure, made in response to questions from AFP, means the company continues to pay soldiers in contravention of a series of legal measures aimed at stopping military units working as paid protection, rights activists said”
Numerous reports have documented the military’s involvement in resource extraction in West Papua including their involvement in illegal logging and receiving protection fees paid by resource companies.
A report by researchers at the University of Indonesia and the International NGO Forum for Indonesian Development said “Indonesia’s military is deeply involved in illegal logging that threatens some of the world’s largest remaining forest, university researchers said Friday. Officials in the military and police covertly finance, coordinate or enable logging rackets in vast jungle, the second largest in the world after the Amazon”.
We could go on ad infinitum about reports of the security forces’ involvement in resource extraction and human rights abuses in West Papua. However, the specific questions we are asking is why are we involved in training and exercising with the Indonesian military? What benefits have the West Papuan people gained by our cooperation with the Indonesian security forces?
We understand that it is in the interests of the Australian Government to have good relations and friendship with Jakarta and to have a stable region to our north, but good relations with Jakarta should not be at the expense of the West Papuan people who are struggling for their right to “self-determination”. In fact, it is the policies of the Indonesian Government, compounded by the actions of the Indonesian security forces which will lead to the very instability the Australian Government is trying to avoid.
Although Indonesia has made great progress towards democracy in recent years, unfortunately this has not translated to an improvement in the human rights situation in West Papua. There are ongoing human rights abuses and a large number of political prisoners jailed simply because they raised the West Papuan national flag.
We would like to thank your government for the aid already given in support of HIV/AIDS programs in West Papua but we believe more could be done and West Papua should be an area of priority in our foreign aid contributions. West Papua is rich in natural resources but the West Papuan people have one of the poorest health standards in the archipelago. Although the Indonesian government has established health centers in the majority of sub-districts in West Papua, these centers lack properly trained staff ,medicines , diagnoses of illness and accountability of causes of death particularly in the more remote areas of the territory.
We believe that Australia can contribute greatly to peace and stability in West Papua by supporting the West Papuan people in capacity building in the fields of health, education and in attaining economic security.
AWPA urges you to raise the deteriorating situation in West Papua with the Indonesian President during your discussions with him on his visit to Australia.
We ask you to urge the Indonesian President to,
release all West Papuan political prisoners arrested for simply taking part in peaceful rallies which is their democratic right
as a sign of good faith to the West Papuan people control the security forces in West Papua, urging that the security forces halt their intimidation of human rights defenders and peaceful demonstrators as a way of avoiding further escalation of the situation and avoiding possible bloodshed.
As the West Papuan people are calling for dialogue with the Indonesian Government to try and solve the many issues of concern in West Papua. AWPA urges you to encourage the Indonesian President to dialogue with genuine representatives of the West Papuan people
And finally the Australia West Papua Association urges you to cease all ties between the Australian military and the Indonesian special forces unit Kopassus, until such time that Indonesian military personnel involved in past human rights abuses are brought to justice and the culture of the Indonesian military becomes of an acceptable standard to both the Australian military and the Australian people.
We also encourage the government to send a cross -parliamentary delegation to visit West Papua to investigate the human rights situation in the territory.
Yours sincerely
Joe Collins
AWPA (Sydney)
ENDS
Vanuatu government urged to restate Papua stance
Posted at 01:38 on 01 March, 2010 UTC
The Vanuatu Free West Papua Association says the government needs to clarify its position on the independence of Papua.
The Daily Post reports that the Prime Minister’s office issued a statement, following the cancellation of a peaceful march, saying that Vanuatu’s diplomatic relationship with Indonesia means that, legally, it accepts Indonesia’s sovereignty over West Papua.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister says he is currently seeking advice on whether the Government should restate its posititon on Papua for clarity.
But the Association’s Pastor, Alain Nafuki, says that is a change in stance from the government, and especially its leading party, the Vanua’aku Party.
“And we the churches, and the chiefs of Vanuatu and the people in general think that is not right, we think we should come back to the original policy of the early government. Although we may respect the ties between Indonesia and Vanuatu we still support the struggle for self-determination.”
Alain Nafuki says the planned protest will now go ahead on Friday, which is a public holiday in Vanuatu.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
The Vanuatu Free West Papua Association says the government needs to clarify its position on the independence of Papua.
The Daily Post reports that the Prime Minister’s office issued a statement, following the cancellation of a peaceful march, saying that Vanuatu’s diplomatic relationship with Indonesia means that, legally, it accepts Indonesia’s sovereignty over West Papua.
A spokesman for the Prime Minister says he is currently seeking advice on whether the Government should restate its posititon on Papua for clarity.
But the Association’s Pastor, Alain Nafuki, says that is a change in stance from the government, and especially its leading party, the Vanua’aku Party.
“And we the churches, and the chiefs of Vanuatu and the people in general think that is not right, we think we should come back to the original policy of the early government. Although we may respect the ties between Indonesia and Vanuatu we still support the struggle for self-determination.”
Alain Nafuki says the planned protest will now go ahead on Friday, which is a public holiday in Vanuatu.
News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand
How to deliver peace in troubled Papua province
JAKARTA POST
P.M. Erza Killian , Malang | Mon, 03/01/2010 1:11 PM | Opinion
A series of threats and violence in the mining area of PT Freeport Indonesia is unlikely to cease despite the death of the Free Papua Movement (OPM) leader Kelly Kwalik, who was believed to be behind the terror in Papua.
The Jan. 24 shooting was the 4th shooting incident in the last seven months, causing an increase in the security and military measures of the mining company.
Freeport and the Indonesian government have a long and complex history not only with the separatist group, but with the local community. Social disparities, the unequal spread of wealth, historical concerns and allegations of "stealing" Papua's natural resources were at the root of the conflict. Despite the efforts of both parties to overcome this problem, Papua remains a problematic issue in Indonesia's politics.
Following Indonesia's so-called attempt to free West Papua in 1963, Freeport started its full operation in 1966, causing ongoing resistance from the local community who believe the company and the government is destroying their homeland and not compensating them enough.
Although, since the late 1990s, Freeport has made various attempts to empower the community and provide basic infrastructure and needs, the damage done was already too big to be compensated by just 1 percent of the company's revenue.
Similarly, the government's approach to Papua has not been very popular. After the assassination of notable Papuan leader Theys Hiyo Eluay by seven members of the Indonesian Special Army Troops (Kopassus) and the shooting of Kelly Kwalik by the police force, the attitude of the Papuans' toward the government is clearly not improving.
It was a clear irony watching Kwalik's funeral, where a man labeled as separatist was mourned by more than 800 local people, raising questions about the given label. One could see there was something wrong in the government's handling of the Papuan case.
The case of Papua is obviously not an easy one to handle. A combination of historical issues, economic concerns, political factors and cultural aspects clearly plays a role in the dispute. The government has so far only touched on several aspects of the problem, leaving other issues untouched.
The government for example, responded to the economic and political issues by giving special autonomy status to the region, providing the region with more money and opportunity to grow, although the success of this program is still questionable.
Similarly, the government, during president Megawati Soekarnoputri's legacy, decided to divide the region into five provinces despite the local accusation that it was merely the government's technique to minimize the "freedom of aspiration" of the people by giving them more power.
As a result, the region so far had been separated into two provinces with uncertain and mixed results for growth and development.
However, the government still hasn't touched on one of the most crucial issues covering the region, which is culture. Papua, without a doubt, is the most distinct cultural groups in the country. Not only do they have a strikingly different appearance, race and identity from their Indonesian counterparts, they also have a different historical background.
Papuans were not involved in Indonesia's Youth Pledge (Sumpah Pemuda) in 1928 nor in Indonesia's Proclamation of Independence in 1945. Papuans were "latecomers" in Indonesia's history and therefore share a different sense of belongings compared to the other people in the country.
This situation was worsened by the stereotype given to the Papuans as minor, uneducated and a subordinate group in the community, making them even more reluctant to join the larger community of Indonesia. This is one crucial issue the government has failed to touch on.
Richard Chauvel (2005) put it very clearly when he said that Papuans have a different sense of nationalism from Indonesia, one that is called "Papuan Nationalism", a larger sense of belonging to the region rather than to the country, due to the similarity in identity, culture and historical background. This nationalism is often very influential to the point that even long-time immigrants and non-Papuans can actually relate and even possess this sense of belonging.
If there is one thing the central government lacks in negotiating peace with Papua, it is a clear understanding of this "nationalism". It is true that economic factors also play an important role, but economic solutions alone won't be enough. Papua needs recognition as a different identity, a different culture and an equal partner within Indonesia. If Indonesia can't or won't give that recognition, they are going to force it using their own way.
What Papua needs is recognition. Not recognition as a separate country, but as a different entity with a different culture that should receive equal treatment and respect from the others. Papua is indeed a complex case, requiring not only the government's approach but also the involvement of society as well as an overall perspective shift regarding the issue.
It is therefore a matter of bridging communication and understanding between the central government, the local community and society to solve the problem of Papua. Misunderstanding is often a source of dispute and Papua has been misunderstood for so long.
What the government needs to work on now is not just implementing economic development policy in Papua, but how to integrate Papuans into the larger Indonesian community, slowly building their sense of belonging as Indonesians, not just as Papuans.
Denise Leith (2003) argues that one of the basic problems of the Freeport-Indonesia-local community relationship is cultural differences that often blur the lines of communication, leading to misunderstanding, resentment and inappropriate development programs. Indonesia, therefore, needs to work first on understanding Papuan culture and their national identity before its hopes of a lasting peace in Papua can be achieved.
This should be the goal, not only for the government, but society as a whole, if Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia) is still our final goal.
The writer is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Brawijaya University, Malang. She has been residing in Papua for more than 20 years.
Comments (3) | Post comment A | A | A | | | | | | | Izak Morin (not verified), Jayapura — Tue, 03/02/2010 - 8:24am
I do agree with Ms. P.M.Erza Killian that what the people of Papua basically need is a recognition ‘as a different identity, a different culture and an equal partner within Indonesia’. But, as a matter of fact, what Papuans have experienced so far is ‘killing’ in all aspects of life. Here are some examples. First, up to now more than 100,000 people including Theys Hiyo Eluay and Kelly Kwalik have been killed for only expressing their different political views and against human rights violations. This happened because the legal principle of presumption of innocent does not have space for the Papuans in the Indonesian legal system. Second, the banning of books written by Papuan authors – Sendius Wonda, Socrates Yoman, Semuin Karoba and others – is another exercise of killing the thoughts of the Papuans in expressing what they feel, see and experience through their writing. The Papuans writers have no space to express themselves in the Indonesian literature. Third, closing door policy for the international visitors to come to Papua is another exercise of killing the promotion of the Papuan culture to the outside world. Papua is the Land of Paradise with its beautiful nature and its own unique culture but it is intentionally hidden from the eyes of the world. Fourth, unequal balance of profits gaining from the abundance of natural resources (oil in Sorong, gold and copper in Timika, gas in Bintuni, forests throughout Papua, fish and shrimp in Sorong and southern part of Papua) is another exercise of killing the Papuans through lack of funding for the health sector (lack of health facilities in every hospitals to save their life – mostly mother and children – no medicines supply to save their life, not enough nurses and doctors to save their life), the education sector (lack of education facilities in every school, particularly in the remote areas where most Papuan children live, lack of scholarship to fund the brilliant Papuans to gain their education as high as they can, lack of qualified teachers, etc). Fifth, no a word of sorry from the government for the Papuans who were tortured, killed, disappeared and raped in the past is another exercise of killing the sense of belonging to Indonesia. I think Indonesia has to learn from the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd (in 2008), the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown (in 2010), and the Canadian Prime Minister (in 2009) who acknowledged what the government had done wrong to its own people and sincerely expressed their ‘SORRY’ as a sign of love, respect and recognition. So, I think the government should change its course of action. It is no longer an era of killing Papuans but hugging them with love, respect and recognition. If this 3-in-1 formula is taken into consideration by the government I truly believe something will change in Papua. However, all Papuans have a dream that one day Indonesian authorities and Papuan leaders will sit together around a table to solve the conflict in Papua. May the dream of having a dialogue come true as a way of delivering peace in Papua! Izak Morin Jayapura
Gede Widia Pratama Adhyaksa (not verified), Bandung — Mon, 03/01/2010 - 6:01pm
So far, the president of Republik Indonesia and our statesman, have been dominated by the Javanese and Moeslem people, I imagine what will be more exciting whenever in the upcoming years, there will be a president from an indigenous papuas. This is the time where every child of Indonesia no matter where they come from, what identities they have, they also can be a leader (e.q president) as equal as other people from entire NKRI. otherwise? .....
Ruddy (not verified), jakarta — Mon, 03/01/2010 - 2:32pm
saya suka skali topik ini,kalau boleh saya ingin koresponden langsung dgn penulisnya,supaya kita bisa berbagi informasi,saya salah satu mahasiswa asal papua yg sedang study di jawa,dan sangat menarik melihat orang dari luar papua bisa mengenal detail persoalan yg sedang terjadi di papua
P.M. Erza Killian , Malang | Mon, 03/01/2010 1:11 PM | Opinion
A series of threats and violence in the mining area of PT Freeport Indonesia is unlikely to cease despite the death of the Free Papua Movement (OPM) leader Kelly Kwalik, who was believed to be behind the terror in Papua.
The Jan. 24 shooting was the 4th shooting incident in the last seven months, causing an increase in the security and military measures of the mining company.
Freeport and the Indonesian government have a long and complex history not only with the separatist group, but with the local community. Social disparities, the unequal spread of wealth, historical concerns and allegations of "stealing" Papua's natural resources were at the root of the conflict. Despite the efforts of both parties to overcome this problem, Papua remains a problematic issue in Indonesia's politics.
Following Indonesia's so-called attempt to free West Papua in 1963, Freeport started its full operation in 1966, causing ongoing resistance from the local community who believe the company and the government is destroying their homeland and not compensating them enough.
Although, since the late 1990s, Freeport has made various attempts to empower the community and provide basic infrastructure and needs, the damage done was already too big to be compensated by just 1 percent of the company's revenue.
Similarly, the government's approach to Papua has not been very popular. After the assassination of notable Papuan leader Theys Hiyo Eluay by seven members of the Indonesian Special Army Troops (Kopassus) and the shooting of Kelly Kwalik by the police force, the attitude of the Papuans' toward the government is clearly not improving.
It was a clear irony watching Kwalik's funeral, where a man labeled as separatist was mourned by more than 800 local people, raising questions about the given label. One could see there was something wrong in the government's handling of the Papuan case.
The case of Papua is obviously not an easy one to handle. A combination of historical issues, economic concerns, political factors and cultural aspects clearly plays a role in the dispute. The government has so far only touched on several aspects of the problem, leaving other issues untouched.
The government for example, responded to the economic and political issues by giving special autonomy status to the region, providing the region with more money and opportunity to grow, although the success of this program is still questionable.
Similarly, the government, during president Megawati Soekarnoputri's legacy, decided to divide the region into five provinces despite the local accusation that it was merely the government's technique to minimize the "freedom of aspiration" of the people by giving them more power.
As a result, the region so far had been separated into two provinces with uncertain and mixed results for growth and development.
However, the government still hasn't touched on one of the most crucial issues covering the region, which is culture. Papua, without a doubt, is the most distinct cultural groups in the country. Not only do they have a strikingly different appearance, race and identity from their Indonesian counterparts, they also have a different historical background.
Papuans were not involved in Indonesia's Youth Pledge (Sumpah Pemuda) in 1928 nor in Indonesia's Proclamation of Independence in 1945. Papuans were "latecomers" in Indonesia's history and therefore share a different sense of belongings compared to the other people in the country.
This situation was worsened by the stereotype given to the Papuans as minor, uneducated and a subordinate group in the community, making them even more reluctant to join the larger community of Indonesia. This is one crucial issue the government has failed to touch on.
Richard Chauvel (2005) put it very clearly when he said that Papuans have a different sense of nationalism from Indonesia, one that is called "Papuan Nationalism", a larger sense of belonging to the region rather than to the country, due to the similarity in identity, culture and historical background. This nationalism is often very influential to the point that even long-time immigrants and non-Papuans can actually relate and even possess this sense of belonging.
If there is one thing the central government lacks in negotiating peace with Papua, it is a clear understanding of this "nationalism". It is true that economic factors also play an important role, but economic solutions alone won't be enough. Papua needs recognition as a different identity, a different culture and an equal partner within Indonesia. If Indonesia can't or won't give that recognition, they are going to force it using their own way.
What Papua needs is recognition. Not recognition as a separate country, but as a different entity with a different culture that should receive equal treatment and respect from the others. Papua is indeed a complex case, requiring not only the government's approach but also the involvement of society as well as an overall perspective shift regarding the issue.
It is therefore a matter of bridging communication and understanding between the central government, the local community and society to solve the problem of Papua. Misunderstanding is often a source of dispute and Papua has been misunderstood for so long.
What the government needs to work on now is not just implementing economic development policy in Papua, but how to integrate Papuans into the larger Indonesian community, slowly building their sense of belonging as Indonesians, not just as Papuans.
Denise Leith (2003) argues that one of the basic problems of the Freeport-Indonesia-local community relationship is cultural differences that often blur the lines of communication, leading to misunderstanding, resentment and inappropriate development programs. Indonesia, therefore, needs to work first on understanding Papuan culture and their national identity before its hopes of a lasting peace in Papua can be achieved.
This should be the goal, not only for the government, but society as a whole, if Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia) is still our final goal.
The writer is a lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Brawijaya University, Malang. She has been residing in Papua for more than 20 years.
Comments (3) | Post comment A | A | A | | | | | | | Izak Morin (not verified), Jayapura — Tue, 03/02/2010 - 8:24am
I do agree with Ms. P.M.Erza Killian that what the people of Papua basically need is a recognition ‘as a different identity, a different culture and an equal partner within Indonesia’. But, as a matter of fact, what Papuans have experienced so far is ‘killing’ in all aspects of life. Here are some examples. First, up to now more than 100,000 people including Theys Hiyo Eluay and Kelly Kwalik have been killed for only expressing their different political views and against human rights violations. This happened because the legal principle of presumption of innocent does not have space for the Papuans in the Indonesian legal system. Second, the banning of books written by Papuan authors – Sendius Wonda, Socrates Yoman, Semuin Karoba and others – is another exercise of killing the thoughts of the Papuans in expressing what they feel, see and experience through their writing. The Papuans writers have no space to express themselves in the Indonesian literature. Third, closing door policy for the international visitors to come to Papua is another exercise of killing the promotion of the Papuan culture to the outside world. Papua is the Land of Paradise with its beautiful nature and its own unique culture but it is intentionally hidden from the eyes of the world. Fourth, unequal balance of profits gaining from the abundance of natural resources (oil in Sorong, gold and copper in Timika, gas in Bintuni, forests throughout Papua, fish and shrimp in Sorong and southern part of Papua) is another exercise of killing the Papuans through lack of funding for the health sector (lack of health facilities in every hospitals to save their life – mostly mother and children – no medicines supply to save their life, not enough nurses and doctors to save their life), the education sector (lack of education facilities in every school, particularly in the remote areas where most Papuan children live, lack of scholarship to fund the brilliant Papuans to gain their education as high as they can, lack of qualified teachers, etc). Fifth, no a word of sorry from the government for the Papuans who were tortured, killed, disappeared and raped in the past is another exercise of killing the sense of belonging to Indonesia. I think Indonesia has to learn from the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd (in 2008), the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown (in 2010), and the Canadian Prime Minister (in 2009) who acknowledged what the government had done wrong to its own people and sincerely expressed their ‘SORRY’ as a sign of love, respect and recognition. So, I think the government should change its course of action. It is no longer an era of killing Papuans but hugging them with love, respect and recognition. If this 3-in-1 formula is taken into consideration by the government I truly believe something will change in Papua. However, all Papuans have a dream that one day Indonesian authorities and Papuan leaders will sit together around a table to solve the conflict in Papua. May the dream of having a dialogue come true as a way of delivering peace in Papua! Izak Morin Jayapura
Gede Widia Pratama Adhyaksa (not verified), Bandung — Mon, 03/01/2010 - 6:01pm
So far, the president of Republik Indonesia and our statesman, have been dominated by the Javanese and Moeslem people, I imagine what will be more exciting whenever in the upcoming years, there will be a president from an indigenous papuas. This is the time where every child of Indonesia no matter where they come from, what identities they have, they also can be a leader (e.q president) as equal as other people from entire NKRI. otherwise? .....
Ruddy (not verified), jakarta — Mon, 03/01/2010 - 2:32pm
saya suka skali topik ini,kalau boleh saya ingin koresponden langsung dgn penulisnya,supaya kita bisa berbagi informasi,saya salah satu mahasiswa asal papua yg sedang study di jawa,dan sangat menarik melihat orang dari luar papua bisa mengenal detail persoalan yg sedang terjadi di papua
Obama should help a people blighted by a US corporation
JAKARTA POST
Carmel Budiardjo , London | Tue, 03/02/2010 2:16 PM | Opinion
As the much-heralded visit of President Barack Obama draws near, it is worth remembering that, unlike any other US president, Obama enjoys a special affection among Indonesians.
Most Indonesians know that he spent several years in Indonesia as a child and probably still remembers the language he used when he played on the streets with local children. For Indonesians, a US president who can actually speak their lingo is indeed a novelty.
In The Audacity of Hope, he wrote at some length about Indonesia, not just about his childhood recollections, but also about events in Indonesia in the 1960s, showing that he has keep abreast of developments during the terrible years of the authoritarian military dictatorship.
"By any measure," he wrote, "Soeharto's rule was harshly repressive. Arrests and torture of dissidents were common, a free press nonexistent, elections a mere formality." He went on to write about ethnic secessionist movements, mentioning Aceh in particular where, he wrote, "the army targeted not just guerrillas but civilians for swift retribution - murder, rape, villages set afire. And throughout the seventies and eighties, all this was done with the knowledge if not the outright approval, of US administrations."
In Dreams From My Father, he wrote about his stepfather's great unease and silence about his one-year military service in New Guinea, now called Papua.
The country Barack Obama will be visiting in March has in many ways changed beyond recognition from the country he wrote about a few years ago. But one place where virtually nothing has changed is West Papua, which was incorporated into Indonesia 40 years ago.
But how many Americans or Indonesians are aware of the fraudulent nature of the so-called Act of Free Choice in 1969, or indeed of the massive revenues Indonesia rakes in from this highly profitable piece of real estate? Papuans know only too well that large tracts of their homeland have been changed beyond recognition by an American company called Freeport.
Although Papua has abundant natural resources and is host to this copper and gold mining company, which is Jakarta's largest taxpayer, the vast majority of indigenous Papuans live in dire poverty, with a health service that barely penetrates the more remote regions of the vast territory, where HIV/AIDS is estimated to be 15 times the national average and mother and child mortality are the highest in Indonesia.
In anticipation of the Obama visit, attention has been focused on agreeing to a strategic partnership. The joint statement is likely to applaud the accord between Jakarta and the resistance in Aceh in 2005, but no one expects Obama's host, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, to breathe a word about Papua. Yet this is where Obama's audacity would be well deserved. Having so pointedly condemned the failure of past US administrations to acknowledge the repression in Aceh, he now faces the challenge of speaking to his host about Papua.
For the past decade, Papuan organizations and human rights NGOs have stressed their firm belief that Papua should become a land of peace, and have called on Jakarta to enter into dialogue as a way of resolving the many problems that still bear down heavily on the Papuan people.
As a Nobel Peace laureate, Obama should understand these aspirations and support any meaningful initiatives to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
According to recent information from our sources in Papua, there are 50 political prisoners there, among them men sentenced to five, 10 and even 15 years simply for unfurling their Morning Star flag in peaceful demonstrations.
One of them is Filep Karma, who was arrested in December 2004 and is serving a 15-year sentence. For six months, he has been suffering from an acute urinary infection, which, according to the local doctor, urgently needs specialist treatment in Jakarta.
But Karma has not yet been provided with the funds he needs to finance the trip for himself and a relative and for a week's treatment at a specialist hospital. He justifiably insists that those who have held him in captivity for so long should provide the funds needed to cure him.
In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Obama acknowledged that men and women around the world jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice were far more deserving of honor than him. He can himself now honor the dozens of political prisoners in Papua in a practical way by proposing their immediate and unconditional release.
Papua has for decades been a restricted territory for international journalists, human rights researchers and independent observers, while reports paint an alarming picture of the overbearing presence of the Indonesian Military, which has created a climate of fear. No doubt some were hoping that Obama could include Papua in his 60-hour itinerary, given that the governments of both countries benefit from the exploitation of Papua's minerals.
Since operations began in the 1970s, the Freeport mine has turned a mountain into a deep crater and seriously polluted the surrounding rivers. Tribal people who lived for generations on the slopes of the mountain were evicted and resettled in coastal regions with devastating consequences for their health and livelihoods.
Peacefully flying the Morning Star flag, which means exercising the right to freedom of expression, has for decades been treated as an act of treason. Three years ago, a prohibition on the use of regional symbols such as the Papuan flag was codified in a presidential decree, in violation of Indonesia's ratification in 2006 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Having criticized US administrations for turning a blind eye to such violations of basic human rights during the Soeharto era, Obama could use his enviable reputation as a world leader to remind his host of the need to repeal laws and regulations that criminalize freedom of expression.
Just imagine how welcome this would be not only to Papuans who will have nothing more than glimpses of Obama on their TVs, but to civil society organizations in Indonesia and indeed to Obama's huge following back home.
The writer is the co-founder of TAPOL and a human rights campaigner.
Comments (2) | Post comment A | A | A | | | | | | | Padric (not verified), Wellington — Wed, 03/03/2010 - 8:52am
Carmel Budiardjo is quite right that Freedom of Expression and Human Rights in Papua are not being upheld. This is mainly due to paranoia from conservative elements in Indonesia interested in security rather than progress but also other elements that wish to use that paranoia to entrench the economic benefits that come from conflict in Papua rather than peace. The problem is that organisations like Tapol only help to build that paranoia. Too many human rights organisations have become a part of the problem rather than the solution by supporting political agendas rather than human rights ones and this ideological bent affects their view of history. As an example, Ms Budiardjo mentions the Act of Free Choice and quite rightly points out that it was a sham but she fails to mention the illegality of the Dutch refusing to leave Papua in 1949 that set the chain of events leading up to the AFC. The mentioning of the AFC and not the illegality of the Dutch actions proir to this could lead many to suppose that Tapol and Ms Budiardjo view of history is slanted towards an arguement that Papua should not be a part of Indonesia. This muddying of the waters between human rights and politics only allows the perpetrators of abuse to hide behind their defence of the nation. Perhaps if Tapol narrowed their discourse to Human Rights they could be seen as an organisation that is part of the solution rather than just building higher and higher levels of paranoia leading to further abuse of Indigenous Papuans Rights.
Andrew Johnson (not verified), Australia — Wed, 03/03/2010 - 5:45am
How many people in Jakarta or the world know the history of Freeport and the 1962 New York Agreement? Indonesia and General Suharto were not the first to succumb to corporate influence, I refer to the appointment by President John F Kennedy in 1961 of McGeorge Bundy as the US National Security Adviser and the fact that McGeorge Bundy and his father were close friends and fellow members of the Yale University "skulls and bones" society with Freeport director Robert Lovett. The New York Agreement was written on the personal advice of McGeorge Bundy and the US National Security Council under him against the protests of the US Dept of State and other advisers. Corporate influence on foreign policy as well as domestic environment, labour and compensation laws are issues which President Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should spend time discussing.
Carmel Budiardjo , London | Tue, 03/02/2010 2:16 PM | Opinion
As the much-heralded visit of President Barack Obama draws near, it is worth remembering that, unlike any other US president, Obama enjoys a special affection among Indonesians.
Most Indonesians know that he spent several years in Indonesia as a child and probably still remembers the language he used when he played on the streets with local children. For Indonesians, a US president who can actually speak their lingo is indeed a novelty.
In The Audacity of Hope, he wrote at some length about Indonesia, not just about his childhood recollections, but also about events in Indonesia in the 1960s, showing that he has keep abreast of developments during the terrible years of the authoritarian military dictatorship.
"By any measure," he wrote, "Soeharto's rule was harshly repressive. Arrests and torture of dissidents were common, a free press nonexistent, elections a mere formality." He went on to write about ethnic secessionist movements, mentioning Aceh in particular where, he wrote, "the army targeted not just guerrillas but civilians for swift retribution - murder, rape, villages set afire. And throughout the seventies and eighties, all this was done with the knowledge if not the outright approval, of US administrations."
In Dreams From My Father, he wrote about his stepfather's great unease and silence about his one-year military service in New Guinea, now called Papua.
The country Barack Obama will be visiting in March has in many ways changed beyond recognition from the country he wrote about a few years ago. But one place where virtually nothing has changed is West Papua, which was incorporated into Indonesia 40 years ago.
But how many Americans or Indonesians are aware of the fraudulent nature of the so-called Act of Free Choice in 1969, or indeed of the massive revenues Indonesia rakes in from this highly profitable piece of real estate? Papuans know only too well that large tracts of their homeland have been changed beyond recognition by an American company called Freeport.
Although Papua has abundant natural resources and is host to this copper and gold mining company, which is Jakarta's largest taxpayer, the vast majority of indigenous Papuans live in dire poverty, with a health service that barely penetrates the more remote regions of the vast territory, where HIV/AIDS is estimated to be 15 times the national average and mother and child mortality are the highest in Indonesia.
In anticipation of the Obama visit, attention has been focused on agreeing to a strategic partnership. The joint statement is likely to applaud the accord between Jakarta and the resistance in Aceh in 2005, but no one expects Obama's host, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, to breathe a word about Papua. Yet this is where Obama's audacity would be well deserved. Having so pointedly condemned the failure of past US administrations to acknowledge the repression in Aceh, he now faces the challenge of speaking to his host about Papua.
For the past decade, Papuan organizations and human rights NGOs have stressed their firm belief that Papua should become a land of peace, and have called on Jakarta to enter into dialogue as a way of resolving the many problems that still bear down heavily on the Papuan people.
As a Nobel Peace laureate, Obama should understand these aspirations and support any meaningful initiatives to achieve a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
According to recent information from our sources in Papua, there are 50 political prisoners there, among them men sentenced to five, 10 and even 15 years simply for unfurling their Morning Star flag in peaceful demonstrations.
One of them is Filep Karma, who was arrested in December 2004 and is serving a 15-year sentence. For six months, he has been suffering from an acute urinary infection, which, according to the local doctor, urgently needs specialist treatment in Jakarta.
But Karma has not yet been provided with the funds he needs to finance the trip for himself and a relative and for a week's treatment at a specialist hospital. He justifiably insists that those who have held him in captivity for so long should provide the funds needed to cure him.
In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Obama acknowledged that men and women around the world jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice were far more deserving of honor than him. He can himself now honor the dozens of political prisoners in Papua in a practical way by proposing their immediate and unconditional release.
Papua has for decades been a restricted territory for international journalists, human rights researchers and independent observers, while reports paint an alarming picture of the overbearing presence of the Indonesian Military, which has created a climate of fear. No doubt some were hoping that Obama could include Papua in his 60-hour itinerary, given that the governments of both countries benefit from the exploitation of Papua's minerals.
Since operations began in the 1970s, the Freeport mine has turned a mountain into a deep crater and seriously polluted the surrounding rivers. Tribal people who lived for generations on the slopes of the mountain were evicted and resettled in coastal regions with devastating consequences for their health and livelihoods.
Peacefully flying the Morning Star flag, which means exercising the right to freedom of expression, has for decades been treated as an act of treason. Three years ago, a prohibition on the use of regional symbols such as the Papuan flag was codified in a presidential decree, in violation of Indonesia's ratification in 2006 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Having criticized US administrations for turning a blind eye to such violations of basic human rights during the Soeharto era, Obama could use his enviable reputation as a world leader to remind his host of the need to repeal laws and regulations that criminalize freedom of expression.
Just imagine how welcome this would be not only to Papuans who will have nothing more than glimpses of Obama on their TVs, but to civil society organizations in Indonesia and indeed to Obama's huge following back home.
The writer is the co-founder of TAPOL and a human rights campaigner.
Comments (2) | Post comment A | A | A | | | | | | | Padric (not verified), Wellington — Wed, 03/03/2010 - 8:52am
Carmel Budiardjo is quite right that Freedom of Expression and Human Rights in Papua are not being upheld. This is mainly due to paranoia from conservative elements in Indonesia interested in security rather than progress but also other elements that wish to use that paranoia to entrench the economic benefits that come from conflict in Papua rather than peace. The problem is that organisations like Tapol only help to build that paranoia. Too many human rights organisations have become a part of the problem rather than the solution by supporting political agendas rather than human rights ones and this ideological bent affects their view of history. As an example, Ms Budiardjo mentions the Act of Free Choice and quite rightly points out that it was a sham but she fails to mention the illegality of the Dutch refusing to leave Papua in 1949 that set the chain of events leading up to the AFC. The mentioning of the AFC and not the illegality of the Dutch actions proir to this could lead many to suppose that Tapol and Ms Budiardjo view of history is slanted towards an arguement that Papua should not be a part of Indonesia. This muddying of the waters between human rights and politics only allows the perpetrators of abuse to hide behind their defence of the nation. Perhaps if Tapol narrowed their discourse to Human Rights they could be seen as an organisation that is part of the solution rather than just building higher and higher levels of paranoia leading to further abuse of Indigenous Papuans Rights.
Andrew Johnson (not verified), Australia — Wed, 03/03/2010 - 5:45am
How many people in Jakarta or the world know the history of Freeport and the 1962 New York Agreement? Indonesia and General Suharto were not the first to succumb to corporate influence, I refer to the appointment by President John F Kennedy in 1961 of McGeorge Bundy as the US National Security Adviser and the fact that McGeorge Bundy and his father were close friends and fellow members of the Yale University "skulls and bones" society with Freeport director Robert Lovett. The New York Agreement was written on the personal advice of McGeorge Bundy and the US National Security Council under him against the protests of the US Dept of State and other advisers. Corporate influence on foreign policy as well as domestic environment, labour and compensation laws are issues which President Obama and President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should spend time discussing.
Human Rights Watch urges Obama to lobby Indonesia over West Papua's plight
Pacific Scoop:
By Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch.
Dear President Obama,
We write as you prepare to depart for Jakarta to launch the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership. We urge you to seize this opportunity to reaffirm that human rights and the rule of law are essential pillars of US engagement in Indonesia. We ask that you do this by publicly calling for the Indonesian government to make critical human rights improvements and by implementing the Comprehensive Partnership in ways that will ensure that cooperation with the United States leads to improvements, rather than setbacks, in Indonesia’s human rights record.
Your family ties and past experience living in Indonesia provide you with a close connection to the country. They also provide you with a unique capacity to understand the serious human rights challenges facing the Indonesian people and to appreciate the role that the US can play in strengthening respect for human rights and the rule of law in Indonesia in the future.
Over the course of the last decade, Indonesia has taken many important steps to move from an authoritarian state to an emerging, rights-respecting democracy. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should be commended for encouraging a number of those efforts, particularly for solidifying peace and encouraging reconstruction in Aceh and for permitting Indonesia’s anti-corruption commission to prosecute a number of graft cases involving government officials and public figures.
Yet in the 13 months since you took office, some worrying human rights trends have begun to emerge in Indonesia, particularly with respect to the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and religion. On issues such as the military’s business activities or accountability for abuses by the security forces, critical reform efforts have stalled, raising serious questions about President Yudhoyono’s commitment to subjecting the Indonesian military to the rule of law. In other areas, the US has a strong interest in encouraging Indonesia to pursue fledgling reform efforts, including increasing protection for Indonesia’s domestic workers and combating endemic corruption, a subject about which the Indonesian public seems particularly angry.
There are those who contend that in entering into the Comprehensive Partnership, the United States should avoid explicitly addressing past and ongoing human rights violations in Indonesia. We believe that would be a mistake and instead urge you to include a public pledge of enhanced respect for human rights as a central plank of the partnership and condition deepened US engagement upon concrete human rights commitments and improvements from Indonesia. Such action would not only reaffirm America’s commitment to the promotion of human rights and democratic values at home and abroad, but would also strengthen Indonesia’s ability to serve as a reliable and stable strategic partner, to the advantage of the American and Indonesian people, in the coming years.
US officials recently have taken some important steps that demonstrate growing attention to promoting human rights in Indonesia. For example, in September 2009 US officials declined to approve the visa applications of Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, who has been implicated in serious past human rights abuses, and Maj. Gen. Pramono Edi Wibowo. In addition, we note that to date the US military has refrained from resuming ties with the Indonesian army’s notorious Special Forces (Kopassus).
However, if the US hopes to secure lasting gains in many of its areas of interest in Indonesia, including maritime and regional security, cooperation on climate change, and promoting democracy in the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, it needs to go beyond these steps and promote significant improvements in human rights by the Indonesian government. During his presidency, President Yudhoyono has indeed demonstrated a commitment to democratic principles, but he has failed to safeguard freedom of expression and religion in a number of significant ways, leaving the foundations of democracy in Indonesia dangerously weak. He has frequently declined to subject powerful public and private figures to the rule of law and to hold them accountable for serious abuses, undermining the reliability of the government’s commitments for reform in law enforcement, the military, and the forestry sector. And while the Indonesian military has indeed formally withdrawn from politics, its enduring business interests and impunity for past abuses provide it with a significant degree of independence from the civilian government and call into question its fitness as a security partner for the US. If the US government hopes to achieve its objectives with respect to its relationship with Indonesia, it should encourage a number of institutional reforms intended to address these issues.
As detailed below, we urge that you seek concrete commitments in five areas: freedom of expression and religion, conditions in Papua, military reform and accountability, treatment of household domestic workers, and corruption, particularly forestry-sector corruption that threatens possible climate change initiatives.
*1. Political Prisoners, Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Religion*
Indonesia made huge strides in opening space for free expression and the media in the years immediately after Suharto was forced to step down from power. But recent years have seen some troubling developments. Indonesian officials continue to enforce a number of laws that criminalize the peaceful expression of political, religious, and other views. These laws include offenses in Indonesia’s criminal code such as treason or rebellion (makar) and “inciting hatred” (haatzai artikelen), which have been used repeatedly against political activists, including those from the Moluccas and Papua.
Although not widely appreciated and counter to the narrative of Indonesia’s emerging democracy, Indonesia now has a significant and growing number of political prisoners, primarily individuals put behind bars for holding demonstrations and raising flags or displaying symbols that the Indonesian authorities interpreted as calls for independence.
Indonesian officials also continue to enforce a number of laws that effectively restrict the freedom of expression of anti-corruption activists, journalists, and citizens seeking to report misconduct or air consumer complaints. Often these restrictions are imposed in a manner that suggests bias or corruption on the part of the authorities. Human Rights Watch has identified over a dozen instances in the last three years in which public officials or influential private actors used criminal defamation laws, several of which contain heightened penalties for insulting or defaming a public official, as a tool of retaliation against critics. Occasionally, the targets of these attacks were detained by the authorities and even imprisoned, but even when they were sentenced to probation or acquitted of defamation, the criminal charges against them gave rise to a dangerous chilling effect throughout their communities and among members of their professions.
Indonesia continues to fail to safeguard freedom of religion as well, including via a “blasphemy” law that authorizes the imprisonment of those whom government officials consider to have deviated from the central tenets of one of the six officially recognized religions in Indonesia. On February 4, 2010, the Ministers for Religious Affairs and Law and Human Rights publicly defended the Blasphemy Law, which the Constitutional Court is presently reviewing, on the grounds that it is necessary “to endorse religious tolerance.”
In June 2008 the minister of religious affairs issued a decree ordering members of the Ahmadiyah religious movement to cease their public religious activities. Thereafter, Islamist militants forcibly closed or attacked several Ahmadiyah mosques and displaced adherents from their homes. In this and other instances, including one involving a Protestant congregation in the Besaki suburb of Jakarta in February 2010, law enforcement officials failed to intervene against organized groups of people seeking to forcibly close churches or otherwise block religious minorities from observing their faiths. Often, the groups justified their actions by reference to a ministerial decree requiring anyone building “a house of worship” to receive prior approval from the community. When the police have intervened, as in the case of a December 2009 attack on Ahmadiyah in the Tebet suburb of Jakarta, they have often detained the targets of the attack rather than their attackers.
Neither President Yudhoyono nor the minister of home affairs has spoken out against or invalidated dozens of local bylaws in force throughout Indonesia that improperly restrict the rights to equality under law, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, for example by restricting women’s movement at night and their attire, and by requiring candidates for legislative office to pass a Quran reading test. President Yudhoyono similarly took no public action when in October 2009 the provincial parliament of Aceh passed a criminal bylaw authorizing stoning as a punishment for adultery by married people and lashing for homosexual conduct.
While the legal status of that particular bylaw remains disputed, since 2006 the province of Aceh has implemented sharia (Islamic law) in a manner that is explicitly discriminatory, restricting Muslim women’s choice of attire and forbidding close proximity between unmarried Muslim women and men who are not their guardians. In January 2010 officials in Aceh’s sharia police force confirmed that they were conducting patrols in “vice-prone areas,” establishing road blocks to monitor the attire of vehicle passengers, and raiding universities with the assistance of Muslim student groups in an effort to identify and lecture women considered to be violating Muslim dress codes or behavioral rules. Representatives of a local women’s rights group have reported that Aceh’s sharia police frequently harass and mistreat women they apprehend. In January 2010 three sharia police officers are alleged to have detained a woman for walking in the company of a male companion and then gang-raped her. While one local sharia police chief was dismissed as a result of the incident, Jakarta has not called for broader accountability for sharia police officers nor for the reform of Aceh’s inherently discriminatory and repressive laws and policies.
Recently, President Yudhoyono has taken a number of steps that call into serious question the depth of his commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and religion. In 2008, President Yudhoyono’s party supported a new law authorizing up to six years’ imprisonment for internet-based defamation. The authorities have used this law to detain two individuals who tried to report campaign violations by supporters of the president’s son, a candidate for parliament, in advance of the April 2009 legislative elections. As recently as February 5, 2010, in response to increasingly colorful anti-government demonstrations, President Yudhoyono’s spokesman publicly called for the government to strengthen the laws prohibiting “blaspheming state symbols,” such as the president. Such a step would be more reminiscent of the Suharto era than of an emerging democracy.
As Kurt M. Campbell, the State Department’s assistant secretary for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, stated in January 2010, “The freedom to speak your mind and choose your leaders, the ability to access information and worship how you please are the basis of stability. We need to let our partners in the region know that we will always stand on the side of those who pursue those rights.”
During your trip to Indonesia, we urge you follow through on this statement of US policy, and specifically, to call on President Yudhoyono to:
* Order the release of those currently imprisoned for non-violent expression and peaceful assembly, including participating in demonstrations, raising flags, and holding unorthodox religious views.
* Take steps to repeal statutes and regulations that improperly restrict the rights to free expression and freedom of religion, including “insult” laws, criminal defamation laws, anti-blasphemy laws, and the ministerial decree banning the religious practices of the Ahmadiyah.
* Amend overbroad laws, including those prohibiting treason, rebellion, and “inciting hatred,” used to criminalize non-violent expression.
* Reaffirm the principles that the religious activities of one group should never be beholden to the approval of others, and that the Indonesian government has a duty to protect members of religious minorities from violent attacks.
* Order the repeal of the ministerial decree requiring community approval for the construction of houses of worship (used by religious majorities to deny sites to religious minorities).
* Invalidate all local laws, in Aceh and elsewhere, that infringe upon the rights to freedom of religion and expression.
We also urge that assistance provided pursuant to the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership promotes freedom of expression and religion in Indonesia.
*2. Papua*
There is a long history of political tensions in Papua, including serious human rights violations by Indonesian security forces against residents of the province. In recent years, both army troops and police units, particularly mobile paramilitary units (Brimob), have continued to engage in largely indiscriminate village “sweeping” operations through the Central Highlands in pursuit of suspected militants, often mistreating and at times summarily executing civilians. In Merauke, Kopassus soldiers have routinely arrested Papuans without legal authority. In Jayapura, the authorities have tortured inmates at Abepura prison. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been expelled from Papua.
Contributing to the ongoing abuses by law enforcement and security forces in Papua is their complete lack of accountability. Indonesia has been able to maintain this climate of impunity by keeping abuses out the global spotlight through the maintenance of tight restrictions on access for foreign human rights monitors, journalists, and even diplomats.
We urge you to call on President Yudhoyono to:
* End restrictions on access to the province for independent observers, including diplomats, foreign journalists, and human rights organizations.
*Allow the ICRC to resume its operations in Papua.
* Repeal government regulations that conflict with the 2001 Papuan Special Autonomy Law, which permits the display of symbols of Papuan identity, including flags and songs.
* Order an independent and impartial investigation into allegations of human rights violations in Papua, including killings, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention, which has the power to bring the perpetrators of such abuses to justice.
* Establish an independent team to investigate and hold accountable abusive guards and officials at the Abepura prison in Papua, where torture, beatings, and mistreatment by guards are reportedly rampant, and to open the prison to international monitoring.
We also urge you to ensure that assistance provided pursuant to the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership:
* Reinforces the principle that the police, not military troops, should be responsible for law enforcement activities in Papua; and
* is contingent on accountability for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces and law enforcement officials in Papua.
*3. Military Reform*
We understand that in recent months US and Indonesian officials and legislators have called on the US to deepen relations with the Indonesian military, in particular to resume military training for members of the Special Forces, Kopassus. We believe that increased US assistance, without adequate preconditions or safeguards in place, will set back military reform efforts in Indonesia.
Since 1998, the Indonesia government has adopted several measures intended to reduce the military’s influence on politics and independence from civilian authorities and curtail its serious human rights abuses. While some of these measures have been moderately successful, reform efforts have stalled in a number of essential areas, and President Yudhoyono has failed to address several major problems that remain. Among the most pressing concerns are ending current abuses, ensuring accountability for human rights violations, and ending the military’s business activities.
/Lack of Accountability/
Indonesia has failed to ensure accountability for members of the Indonesian security forces, and particularly members of Kopassus, who have been implicated in both past and more recent human rights abuses. In a snub to the United States and other countries that pressed for accountability, all those convicted for atrocities in East Timor in 1999 by an ad hoc tribunal established by Indonesia in response to international pressure were eventually acquitted.
The few soldiers who have been convicted by military tribunals for abuses have largely been reinstated into the ranks and promoted, including seven of 11 military personnel convicted of kidnapping student activists in 1997 and 1998. Col. Tri Hartomo, who was supposedly discharged from the military following his conviction in connection with the death of Papuan activist Theys Eluay in 2001, currently holds a senior position in Kopassus.
Thus far, President Yudhoyono has failed to implement necessary reforms that would ensure accountability for members of the armed forces. Instead, in January 2009 President Yudhoyono appointed Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsuddin to the position of deputy defense minister, despite his being implicated in several notorious human rights abuses for which he has never been credibly investigated.
In September 2009 the Indonesian parliament, acting on a report by the National Human Rights Commission, recommended the creation of an ad hoc court to investigate the enforced disappearances of student activists in 1997 and 1998; President Yudhoyono, whose authorization is required for the court’s creation, has yet to act on the recommendation. Finally, while there is broad-based agreement in Indonesia on the urgent need to reform the military justice system, the Indonesian parliament has thus far failed to implement reforms, for example by subjecting military personnel to the jurisdiction of civilian courts when they are accused of committing crimes against civilians.
Years ago, President Yudhoyono said that assigning responsibility for the 2004 murder of prominent human rights activists Munir S. Thalib would be “the test of [Indonesia's] history.” Yet today, the architects of the killing remain free. On February 9, 2010, a team established by the National Human Rights Commission determined that the 2008 trial of former deputy state intelligence chief and one-time Kopassus commander Muchdi Purwopranjono acquitting him on charges of orchestrating Munir’s murder had suffered from serious shortcomings. The team found that the prosectutors handling of the case was “unprofessional,” the district court judge failed to summon at least two key witnesses for the prosecution, and the appellate court judges lacked experience in conducting criminal trials. The examination team recommended that prosecutors file for a “case review” of Muchdi’s acquittal or that the police reopen the investigation into Munir’s murder.
/Failure to End Military Businesses/
Since its creation, the Indonesian military has operated a vast business network, the effect of which has been to enrich officers while undermining civilian supremacy and contributing to human rights violations, as documented in Human Rights Watch’s 2006 report, “Too High a Price.” In September 2004 the Indonesian parliament passed a law that required the government to shut down or take over all military businesses by October 16, 2009. But the government has repeatedly missed its own deadlines for action. It recently failed to implement the required transfer of businesses and as the five-year deadline passed, the armed forces still retained extensive holdings.
On October 11, 2009, President Yudhoyono issued a decree creating an inter-agency Oversight Team to review the military’s business interests. However, the decree and implementing regulations do not require the military to give up its businesses, but merely provide for a partial restructuring of the entities-military cooperatives and foundations-through which it holds many of its investments. It also disregards other independent sources of military income outside the approved budget process: criminal enterprises, individually owned businesses, and security payments from private companies. Moreover, the Oversight Team lacks independence, as a majority of its members, including the chair, are serving members of the military, and the team operates primarily from the Ministry of Defense, which lacks independence from and authority over the military. The government’s process, as outlined in the presidential decree and accompanying regulations, also does not provide for transparency and accountability. These critiques are elaborated in our January 2010 report, “Unkept Promise: Failure to End Military Business Activity in Indonesia.”
Foreign Military Assistance/
Human Rights Watch believes that under appropriate conditions, foreign military assistance can help the Indonesian military develop into a professional, rights-respecting partner in defense, peacekeeping, and national and maritime security. However, without necessary reforms in place, such assistance may facilitate continued violations of human rights in Indonesia, reinforce impunity, and create the potential for political instability. We urge you to follow through on the commitment expressed to Human Rights Watch in an August 2009 letter from Elizabeth K. Mayfield, acting Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in which she stated, “[w]e will continue to urge the Indonesian security forces, including Kopassus, to respect human rights in Papua and throughout Indonesia, investigate allegations of human rights violations, and hold accountable all those responsible for past abuses, regardless of rank.” We urge you to uphold this commitment by placing conditions on the implementation of the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership that will make Indonesia a more reliable partner and reduce the likelihood of future abuses.
To address the poor human rights record of the Indonesian military, we urge you to:
* Call on President Yudhoyono to ensure that allegations of serious human rights violations by members of the Indonesian military, including those with command responsibility, are credibly investigated, and that those responsible are appropriately punished.
* Condition even limited reengagement with Kopassus upon the satisfaction of the US that: (1) Kopassus has permanently discharged any personnel previously convicted for human rights abuses; and (2) an ad hoc tribunal has been established on the student “disappearances,” as recommended by the Indonesian parliament, and Kopassus has committed in writing to making all relevant personnel and documentation available to investigators. Thereafter, provide training only to carefully vetted participants, and restrict training to non-combat related activities.
* Condition full re-engagement with Kopassus on essential structural reforms to the military, including: (1) genuine progress in eliminating military businesses and enhanced transparency and independence for the Oversight Team, including the release of information on overall military budgets and spending; (2) credible investigations and prosecutions of all military personnel involved in serious violations of human rights; (3) jurisdictional reforms that allow the civilian criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute alleged criminal acts by military personnel against civilians.
* Convey that relations with the Ministry of Defense have been complicated by the appointment of Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin to the position of deputy defense minister, and that fresh, credible, and independent investigations into allegations of Sjamsoeddin’s involvement in human rights violations are necessary.
* Call for the conclusive resolution of the 2004 murder of leading human rights lawyer Munir Said Thalib by having prosecutors file for a “case review” of Kopassus commander Muchdi Purwopranjono’s acquittal or having police reopen the investigation into Munir’s murder.
* In providing any form of military assistance to Indonesia, whether through training, foreign military financing, or anti-terrorism assistance, encourage civilian supremacy over the armed forces and support the shift of the armed forces’ orientation away from internal security. Robustly monitor the provision of all such aid, and resume bans on US assistance should allegations of serious abuses by the armed forces not be credibly investigated and prosecuted, including of allegations of abuse by those with command responsibility.
* Call on the Indonesian government to release complete and detailed information on military budgets and spending, and convey support for a more transparent Military Business Oversight Team, the elements of which should include greater independence, the public release of all financial and legal audits, mandatory reporting on the activities of the team, and civil society participation.
*4. Domestic Workers*
In June 2009 the US ranked Indonesia in “Tier 2″ in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, citing its inadequate efforts to prevent and respond to human trafficking, particularly in the area of domestic servitude both at home and abroad. More than a million Indonesian women work abroad in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Middle East as live-in domestic workers. Several Human Rights Watch reports in the past five years have documented how these women often encounter a range of abuses, including recruitment-related abuses, labor exploitation, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, and situations of forced labor and slavery-like conditions. Indonesia contributes to the abuses its migrant workers face through its failure to regulate, monitor, and penalize the recruitment agencies that send its workers abroad, often after charging workers significant recruitment fees that leave them heavily indebted to their employers and providing them with deceptive or incomplete information about the work conditions they will face and avenues for recourse should they encounter abuse.
Following several high-profile cases of abuse and deaths of domestic workers, Indonesia froze new migration of domestic workers to both Malaysia and Kuwait in 2009 pending the adoption of strengthened protections through bilateral agreements. Indonesia is on the verge of concluding negotiations to revise a 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Malaysia on migrant domestic workers. The current draft contains new provisions to protect migrant women’s right to keep their passports and to have a weekly day of rest, but fails to outline a strategy for making important national-level labor and immigration reforms, or to address the crucial issue of exorbitant recruitment fees and long-term debt arrangements that put migrant domestic workers at high risk of trafficking and debt bondage.
Domestic workers within Indonesia face significant challenges as well. As Human Rights Watch documented in a February 2009 report, “Workers in the Shadows,” hundreds of thousands of girls in Indonesia, some as young as 11, are employed as domestic workers in other people’s households. Many girls work 14- to 18-hour days, seven days a week, with no day off. Many employers forbid these child domestic workers from leaving the house where they work, withhold paying any salary until the child returns home, and then fail to pay the children at all or pay less than what they promised. In the worst cases, girls are physically, psychologically, and sexually abused by their employers or their employers’ family members. Presently, Indonesia’s labor law excludes all domestic workers from the basic labor rights afforded to formal workers, such as a minimum wage, overtime pay, an eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek, weekly day of rest, and vacation. This exclusion has a discriminatory impact on women and girls, who constitute the vast majority of domestic workers, and devalues domestic work and domestic workers.
As you may be aware, your sister Dr. Maya Soetoro-Ng has also written powerfully on this issue in the Indonesian publication Kompas, calling on Indonesia to implement and enforce minimum labor protections for domestic workers, particularly those who are children, and to compel law enforcement authorities to respond effectively to complaints of abuse by domestic workers. In a promising move, the legislative council of the Indonesian parliament recently placed a Domestic Worker’s Law on the legislative agenda for 2010.
The US has a particular interest in urging Indonesia to improve its human rights record with respect to Indonesian domestic workers at home and abroad. The US Department of Labor has committed to provide $5.5 million towards funding programs on child labor in Indonesia, with a particular focus on child domestic workers. Moreover, the United States has taken a leadership role in fighting trafficking in persons around the world and has devoted significant attention and funding to Indonesia in particular.
We urge you to:
* Congratulate the Indonesian parliament on placing the Domestic Worker’s Law on its agenda.
* Encourage President Yudhoyono to support a strong law that provides domestic workers with the same basic labor protections as workers in the formal sector and contains special protections for child domestic workers.
* Make effective reforms to Indonesia’s recruitment practices a central factor in Indonesia’s tier ranking in the 2010 TIP report.
* Urge President Yudhoyono to strengthen protections for its citizens who pursue domestic work abroad, emphasizing the need to effectively regulate and monitor the behavior of recruitment agencies, including their charging of recruitment fees. The Indonesian government should take advantage of opportunities to make such reforms as it revises Law 39 on migration this year and as it finalizes bilateral agreements with Malaysia, Kuwait, and other destination countries.
*5. The Climate Change Agenda and Corruption*
Human Rights Watch recognizes that climate change initiatives will be a key component of the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership and that increased US cooperation with Indonesia and its forestry sector will be vital for the attainment of both countries’ climate change goals in the coming years. Not only has your administration expressed a preference for a cap-and-trade system, but Indonesia’s Copenhagen pledge to reduce its emissions by 26 percent is premised largely on plans to reduce deforestation and land clearing. However, we remain deeply concerned that if Indonesia fails to implement reforms, any influx of US funds from carbon trading and REDD “readiness” programs would further entrench the widespread corruption and weak governance that have plagued Indonesia’s attempts at reforms in forestry, finance, and law enforcement for the past decade. In turn, this corruption weakens the protection and enjoyment of human rights in Indonesia.
Human Rights Watch’s December 2009 report, “Wild Money: The Human Rights Consequences of Illegal Logging and Corruption in Indonesia’s Forestry Sector,” used the Indonesian government’s own data to demonstrate that roughly half of the timber harvested annually in Indonesia is illegal and that the government lost some $2 billion in one year alone (in 2006, the most recent year for which reliable data is available) due to corruption and mismanagement. Significantly, this figure, though staggering, does not include losses from tax arrears and uncollected penalties, nor from smuggled timber. Indonesian officials from the Ministry of Forestry have admitted that they have no mechanism for compelling local forest offices to report data on timber production and revenue collection, creating a lack of reliable data that calls into question the government’s ability to deliver verifiable emission reductions. Our research found that this corruption and foregone revenue also perpetuate a downward spiral of impunity by impeding transparency and civilian oversight and entrenching corruption in law enforcement and the judiciary. Further, the loss of billions of dollars in revenue cripples the government of Indonesia’s ability to provide core services to its citizens, such as basic health care.
During his first administration, President Yudhoyono took significant steps to reform the forestry sector and combat corruption. In addition, the US has provided Indonesia with a strong incentive to redouble reform efforts by amending the Lacey Act to prohibit importation of illegally harvested wood products, which will encourage Indonesia to adopt a “timber legality verification system” including chain of custody and revenue monitoring. While these are important steps, they also suffer from significant shortcomings. For example, the verification system applies only to large (> 50,000 ha) logging concessions, which currently make up less than one-fifth of Indonesia’s timber supply. The vast majority of Indonesian timber comes from forest clearing for plantations, which is intended to generate palm oil for biofuels and is not covered under the verification system.
Moreover, over the course of the last several months, Indonesia’s successful anti-corruption commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, or KPK) has become the target of significant backlash from the national police, the Attorney General’s Office, and members of parliament, as demonstrated by an apparent attempt by senior law enforcement officials to frame two KPK deputies on charges of extortion and abuse of power in fall 2009. In the wake of the KPK controversy, President Yudhoyono did little to promote accountability, failing to call for any of the officials caught on a wiretapped phone conversation plotting to frame the KPK deputies to be investigated on criminal charges or for the implementation of any immediate reforms to prevent such backlash from impairing the KPK’s work. These events call into question President Yudhoyono’s willingness to deliver on his anti-corruption agenda and make it all the more critical that the US require Indonesia to implement certain reforms in the forestry sector before providing it with increased climate change funding.
We urge you to:
* Link any climate change “capacity building” funding to Indonesia to measurable and verifiable benchmarks for data collection and accuracy, transparency, and outside oversight. * Ensure that any REDD scheme in which the US participates in Indonesia employs a rigorous and internationally recognized certification system.
* Urge Indonesia to apply the Timber Legality Verification System to all timber sources from point of harvest to sale in order to comply with the import requirements of the Lacey Act and to contribute to real reductions in illegal logging.
* Urge President Yudhoyono to take strong steps to safeguard the viability of existing anti-corruption initiatives, including the anti-corruption commission, and to support the commission’s efforts to reduce corruption in law enforcement institutions, in order ensure that any influx of climate change funds does not exacerbate corruption or have a negative impact on governance and human rights.
In these ways, we hope you will reaffirm that as the United States deepens its engagement in Indonesia, it will do so in a way that enhances its respect for and protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Indonesian people, strengthening both the rule of law and respect for democratic principles in a critical strategic partner in the years ahead.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
By Kenneth Roth, Executive Director, Human Rights Watch.
Dear President Obama,
We write as you prepare to depart for Jakarta to launch the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership. We urge you to seize this opportunity to reaffirm that human rights and the rule of law are essential pillars of US engagement in Indonesia. We ask that you do this by publicly calling for the Indonesian government to make critical human rights improvements and by implementing the Comprehensive Partnership in ways that will ensure that cooperation with the United States leads to improvements, rather than setbacks, in Indonesia’s human rights record.
Your family ties and past experience living in Indonesia provide you with a close connection to the country. They also provide you with a unique capacity to understand the serious human rights challenges facing the Indonesian people and to appreciate the role that the US can play in strengthening respect for human rights and the rule of law in Indonesia in the future.
Over the course of the last decade, Indonesia has taken many important steps to move from an authoritarian state to an emerging, rights-respecting democracy. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should be commended for encouraging a number of those efforts, particularly for solidifying peace and encouraging reconstruction in Aceh and for permitting Indonesia’s anti-corruption commission to prosecute a number of graft cases involving government officials and public figures.
Yet in the 13 months since you took office, some worrying human rights trends have begun to emerge in Indonesia, particularly with respect to the rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and religion. On issues such as the military’s business activities or accountability for abuses by the security forces, critical reform efforts have stalled, raising serious questions about President Yudhoyono’s commitment to subjecting the Indonesian military to the rule of law. In other areas, the US has a strong interest in encouraging Indonesia to pursue fledgling reform efforts, including increasing protection for Indonesia’s domestic workers and combating endemic corruption, a subject about which the Indonesian public seems particularly angry.
There are those who contend that in entering into the Comprehensive Partnership, the United States should avoid explicitly addressing past and ongoing human rights violations in Indonesia. We believe that would be a mistake and instead urge you to include a public pledge of enhanced respect for human rights as a central plank of the partnership and condition deepened US engagement upon concrete human rights commitments and improvements from Indonesia. Such action would not only reaffirm America’s commitment to the promotion of human rights and democratic values at home and abroad, but would also strengthen Indonesia’s ability to serve as a reliable and stable strategic partner, to the advantage of the American and Indonesian people, in the coming years.
US officials recently have taken some important steps that demonstrate growing attention to promoting human rights in Indonesia. For example, in September 2009 US officials declined to approve the visa applications of Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, who has been implicated in serious past human rights abuses, and Maj. Gen. Pramono Edi Wibowo. In addition, we note that to date the US military has refrained from resuming ties with the Indonesian army’s notorious Special Forces (Kopassus).
However, if the US hopes to secure lasting gains in many of its areas of interest in Indonesia, including maritime and regional security, cooperation on climate change, and promoting democracy in the world’s largest Muslim-majority country, it needs to go beyond these steps and promote significant improvements in human rights by the Indonesian government. During his presidency, President Yudhoyono has indeed demonstrated a commitment to democratic principles, but he has failed to safeguard freedom of expression and religion in a number of significant ways, leaving the foundations of democracy in Indonesia dangerously weak. He has frequently declined to subject powerful public and private figures to the rule of law and to hold them accountable for serious abuses, undermining the reliability of the government’s commitments for reform in law enforcement, the military, and the forestry sector. And while the Indonesian military has indeed formally withdrawn from politics, its enduring business interests and impunity for past abuses provide it with a significant degree of independence from the civilian government and call into question its fitness as a security partner for the US. If the US government hopes to achieve its objectives with respect to its relationship with Indonesia, it should encourage a number of institutional reforms intended to address these issues.
As detailed below, we urge that you seek concrete commitments in five areas: freedom of expression and religion, conditions in Papua, military reform and accountability, treatment of household domestic workers, and corruption, particularly forestry-sector corruption that threatens possible climate change initiatives.
*1. Political Prisoners, Freedom of Expression, and Freedom of Religion*
Indonesia made huge strides in opening space for free expression and the media in the years immediately after Suharto was forced to step down from power. But recent years have seen some troubling developments. Indonesian officials continue to enforce a number of laws that criminalize the peaceful expression of political, religious, and other views. These laws include offenses in Indonesia’s criminal code such as treason or rebellion (makar) and “inciting hatred” (haatzai artikelen), which have been used repeatedly against political activists, including those from the Moluccas and Papua.
Although not widely appreciated and counter to the narrative of Indonesia’s emerging democracy, Indonesia now has a significant and growing number of political prisoners, primarily individuals put behind bars for holding demonstrations and raising flags or displaying symbols that the Indonesian authorities interpreted as calls for independence.
Indonesian officials also continue to enforce a number of laws that effectively restrict the freedom of expression of anti-corruption activists, journalists, and citizens seeking to report misconduct or air consumer complaints. Often these restrictions are imposed in a manner that suggests bias or corruption on the part of the authorities. Human Rights Watch has identified over a dozen instances in the last three years in which public officials or influential private actors used criminal defamation laws, several of which contain heightened penalties for insulting or defaming a public official, as a tool of retaliation against critics. Occasionally, the targets of these attacks were detained by the authorities and even imprisoned, but even when they were sentenced to probation or acquitted of defamation, the criminal charges against them gave rise to a dangerous chilling effect throughout their communities and among members of their professions.
Indonesia continues to fail to safeguard freedom of religion as well, including via a “blasphemy” law that authorizes the imprisonment of those whom government officials consider to have deviated from the central tenets of one of the six officially recognized religions in Indonesia. On February 4, 2010, the Ministers for Religious Affairs and Law and Human Rights publicly defended the Blasphemy Law, which the Constitutional Court is presently reviewing, on the grounds that it is necessary “to endorse religious tolerance.”
In June 2008 the minister of religious affairs issued a decree ordering members of the Ahmadiyah religious movement to cease their public religious activities. Thereafter, Islamist militants forcibly closed or attacked several Ahmadiyah mosques and displaced adherents from their homes. In this and other instances, including one involving a Protestant congregation in the Besaki suburb of Jakarta in February 2010, law enforcement officials failed to intervene against organized groups of people seeking to forcibly close churches or otherwise block religious minorities from observing their faiths. Often, the groups justified their actions by reference to a ministerial decree requiring anyone building “a house of worship” to receive prior approval from the community. When the police have intervened, as in the case of a December 2009 attack on Ahmadiyah in the Tebet suburb of Jakarta, they have often detained the targets of the attack rather than their attackers.
Neither President Yudhoyono nor the minister of home affairs has spoken out against or invalidated dozens of local bylaws in force throughout Indonesia that improperly restrict the rights to equality under law, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion, for example by restricting women’s movement at night and their attire, and by requiring candidates for legislative office to pass a Quran reading test. President Yudhoyono similarly took no public action when in October 2009 the provincial parliament of Aceh passed a criminal bylaw authorizing stoning as a punishment for adultery by married people and lashing for homosexual conduct.
While the legal status of that particular bylaw remains disputed, since 2006 the province of Aceh has implemented sharia (Islamic law) in a manner that is explicitly discriminatory, restricting Muslim women’s choice of attire and forbidding close proximity between unmarried Muslim women and men who are not their guardians. In January 2010 officials in Aceh’s sharia police force confirmed that they were conducting patrols in “vice-prone areas,” establishing road blocks to monitor the attire of vehicle passengers, and raiding universities with the assistance of Muslim student groups in an effort to identify and lecture women considered to be violating Muslim dress codes or behavioral rules. Representatives of a local women’s rights group have reported that Aceh’s sharia police frequently harass and mistreat women they apprehend. In January 2010 three sharia police officers are alleged to have detained a woman for walking in the company of a male companion and then gang-raped her. While one local sharia police chief was dismissed as a result of the incident, Jakarta has not called for broader accountability for sharia police officers nor for the reform of Aceh’s inherently discriminatory and repressive laws and policies.
Recently, President Yudhoyono has taken a number of steps that call into serious question the depth of his commitment to the principles of freedom of expression and religion. In 2008, President Yudhoyono’s party supported a new law authorizing up to six years’ imprisonment for internet-based defamation. The authorities have used this law to detain two individuals who tried to report campaign violations by supporters of the president’s son, a candidate for parliament, in advance of the April 2009 legislative elections. As recently as February 5, 2010, in response to increasingly colorful anti-government demonstrations, President Yudhoyono’s spokesman publicly called for the government to strengthen the laws prohibiting “blaspheming state symbols,” such as the president. Such a step would be more reminiscent of the Suharto era than of an emerging democracy.
As Kurt M. Campbell, the State Department’s assistant secretary for the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, stated in January 2010, “The freedom to speak your mind and choose your leaders, the ability to access information and worship how you please are the basis of stability. We need to let our partners in the region know that we will always stand on the side of those who pursue those rights.”
During your trip to Indonesia, we urge you follow through on this statement of US policy, and specifically, to call on President Yudhoyono to:
* Order the release of those currently imprisoned for non-violent expression and peaceful assembly, including participating in demonstrations, raising flags, and holding unorthodox religious views.
* Take steps to repeal statutes and regulations that improperly restrict the rights to free expression and freedom of religion, including “insult” laws, criminal defamation laws, anti-blasphemy laws, and the ministerial decree banning the religious practices of the Ahmadiyah.
* Amend overbroad laws, including those prohibiting treason, rebellion, and “inciting hatred,” used to criminalize non-violent expression.
* Reaffirm the principles that the religious activities of one group should never be beholden to the approval of others, and that the Indonesian government has a duty to protect members of religious minorities from violent attacks.
* Order the repeal of the ministerial decree requiring community approval for the construction of houses of worship (used by religious majorities to deny sites to religious minorities).
* Invalidate all local laws, in Aceh and elsewhere, that infringe upon the rights to freedom of religion and expression.
We also urge that assistance provided pursuant to the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership promotes freedom of expression and religion in Indonesia.
*2. Papua*
There is a long history of political tensions in Papua, including serious human rights violations by Indonesian security forces against residents of the province. In recent years, both army troops and police units, particularly mobile paramilitary units (Brimob), have continued to engage in largely indiscriminate village “sweeping” operations through the Central Highlands in pursuit of suspected militants, often mistreating and at times summarily executing civilians. In Merauke, Kopassus soldiers have routinely arrested Papuans without legal authority. In Jayapura, the authorities have tortured inmates at Abepura prison. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has been expelled from Papua.
Contributing to the ongoing abuses by law enforcement and security forces in Papua is their complete lack of accountability. Indonesia has been able to maintain this climate of impunity by keeping abuses out the global spotlight through the maintenance of tight restrictions on access for foreign human rights monitors, journalists, and even diplomats.
We urge you to call on President Yudhoyono to:
* End restrictions on access to the province for independent observers, including diplomats, foreign journalists, and human rights organizations.
*Allow the ICRC to resume its operations in Papua.
* Repeal government regulations that conflict with the 2001 Papuan Special Autonomy Law, which permits the display of symbols of Papuan identity, including flags and songs.
* Order an independent and impartial investigation into allegations of human rights violations in Papua, including killings, torture, and arbitrary arrest and detention, which has the power to bring the perpetrators of such abuses to justice.
* Establish an independent team to investigate and hold accountable abusive guards and officials at the Abepura prison in Papua, where torture, beatings, and mistreatment by guards are reportedly rampant, and to open the prison to international monitoring.
We also urge you to ensure that assistance provided pursuant to the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership:
* Reinforces the principle that the police, not military troops, should be responsible for law enforcement activities in Papua; and
* is contingent on accountability for human rights violations committed by Indonesian security forces and law enforcement officials in Papua.
*3. Military Reform*
We understand that in recent months US and Indonesian officials and legislators have called on the US to deepen relations with the Indonesian military, in particular to resume military training for members of the Special Forces, Kopassus. We believe that increased US assistance, without adequate preconditions or safeguards in place, will set back military reform efforts in Indonesia.
Since 1998, the Indonesia government has adopted several measures intended to reduce the military’s influence on politics and independence from civilian authorities and curtail its serious human rights abuses. While some of these measures have been moderately successful, reform efforts have stalled in a number of essential areas, and President Yudhoyono has failed to address several major problems that remain. Among the most pressing concerns are ending current abuses, ensuring accountability for human rights violations, and ending the military’s business activities.
/Lack of Accountability/
Indonesia has failed to ensure accountability for members of the Indonesian security forces, and particularly members of Kopassus, who have been implicated in both past and more recent human rights abuses. In a snub to the United States and other countries that pressed for accountability, all those convicted for atrocities in East Timor in 1999 by an ad hoc tribunal established by Indonesia in response to international pressure were eventually acquitted.
The few soldiers who have been convicted by military tribunals for abuses have largely been reinstated into the ranks and promoted, including seven of 11 military personnel convicted of kidnapping student activists in 1997 and 1998. Col. Tri Hartomo, who was supposedly discharged from the military following his conviction in connection with the death of Papuan activist Theys Eluay in 2001, currently holds a senior position in Kopassus.
Thus far, President Yudhoyono has failed to implement necessary reforms that would ensure accountability for members of the armed forces. Instead, in January 2009 President Yudhoyono appointed Lt. Gen. Sjafrie Sjamsuddin to the position of deputy defense minister, despite his being implicated in several notorious human rights abuses for which he has never been credibly investigated.
In September 2009 the Indonesian parliament, acting on a report by the National Human Rights Commission, recommended the creation of an ad hoc court to investigate the enforced disappearances of student activists in 1997 and 1998; President Yudhoyono, whose authorization is required for the court’s creation, has yet to act on the recommendation. Finally, while there is broad-based agreement in Indonesia on the urgent need to reform the military justice system, the Indonesian parliament has thus far failed to implement reforms, for example by subjecting military personnel to the jurisdiction of civilian courts when they are accused of committing crimes against civilians.
Years ago, President Yudhoyono said that assigning responsibility for the 2004 murder of prominent human rights activists Munir S. Thalib would be “the test of [Indonesia's] history.” Yet today, the architects of the killing remain free. On February 9, 2010, a team established by the National Human Rights Commission determined that the 2008 trial of former deputy state intelligence chief and one-time Kopassus commander Muchdi Purwopranjono acquitting him on charges of orchestrating Munir’s murder had suffered from serious shortcomings. The team found that the prosectutors handling of the case was “unprofessional,” the district court judge failed to summon at least two key witnesses for the prosecution, and the appellate court judges lacked experience in conducting criminal trials. The examination team recommended that prosecutors file for a “case review” of Muchdi’s acquittal or that the police reopen the investigation into Munir’s murder.
/Failure to End Military Businesses/
Since its creation, the Indonesian military has operated a vast business network, the effect of which has been to enrich officers while undermining civilian supremacy and contributing to human rights violations, as documented in Human Rights Watch’s 2006 report, “Too High a Price.” In September 2004 the Indonesian parliament passed a law that required the government to shut down or take over all military businesses by October 16, 2009. But the government has repeatedly missed its own deadlines for action. It recently failed to implement the required transfer of businesses and as the five-year deadline passed, the armed forces still retained extensive holdings.
On October 11, 2009, President Yudhoyono issued a decree creating an inter-agency Oversight Team to review the military’s business interests. However, the decree and implementing regulations do not require the military to give up its businesses, but merely provide for a partial restructuring of the entities-military cooperatives and foundations-through which it holds many of its investments. It also disregards other independent sources of military income outside the approved budget process: criminal enterprises, individually owned businesses, and security payments from private companies. Moreover, the Oversight Team lacks independence, as a majority of its members, including the chair, are serving members of the military, and the team operates primarily from the Ministry of Defense, which lacks independence from and authority over the military. The government’s process, as outlined in the presidential decree and accompanying regulations, also does not provide for transparency and accountability. These critiques are elaborated in our January 2010 report, “Unkept Promise: Failure to End Military Business Activity in Indonesia.”
Foreign Military Assistance/
Human Rights Watch believes that under appropriate conditions, foreign military assistance can help the Indonesian military develop into a professional, rights-respecting partner in defense, peacekeeping, and national and maritime security. However, without necessary reforms in place, such assistance may facilitate continued violations of human rights in Indonesia, reinforce impunity, and create the potential for political instability. We urge you to follow through on the commitment expressed to Human Rights Watch in an August 2009 letter from Elizabeth K. Mayfield, acting Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, in which she stated, “[w]e will continue to urge the Indonesian security forces, including Kopassus, to respect human rights in Papua and throughout Indonesia, investigate allegations of human rights violations, and hold accountable all those responsible for past abuses, regardless of rank.” We urge you to uphold this commitment by placing conditions on the implementation of the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership that will make Indonesia a more reliable partner and reduce the likelihood of future abuses.
To address the poor human rights record of the Indonesian military, we urge you to:
* Call on President Yudhoyono to ensure that allegations of serious human rights violations by members of the Indonesian military, including those with command responsibility, are credibly investigated, and that those responsible are appropriately punished.
* Condition even limited reengagement with Kopassus upon the satisfaction of the US that: (1) Kopassus has permanently discharged any personnel previously convicted for human rights abuses; and (2) an ad hoc tribunal has been established on the student “disappearances,” as recommended by the Indonesian parliament, and Kopassus has committed in writing to making all relevant personnel and documentation available to investigators. Thereafter, provide training only to carefully vetted participants, and restrict training to non-combat related activities.
* Condition full re-engagement with Kopassus on essential structural reforms to the military, including: (1) genuine progress in eliminating military businesses and enhanced transparency and independence for the Oversight Team, including the release of information on overall military budgets and spending; (2) credible investigations and prosecutions of all military personnel involved in serious violations of human rights; (3) jurisdictional reforms that allow the civilian criminal justice system to investigate and prosecute alleged criminal acts by military personnel against civilians.
* Convey that relations with the Ministry of Defense have been complicated by the appointment of Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin to the position of deputy defense minister, and that fresh, credible, and independent investigations into allegations of Sjamsoeddin’s involvement in human rights violations are necessary.
* Call for the conclusive resolution of the 2004 murder of leading human rights lawyer Munir Said Thalib by having prosecutors file for a “case review” of Kopassus commander Muchdi Purwopranjono’s acquittal or having police reopen the investigation into Munir’s murder.
* In providing any form of military assistance to Indonesia, whether through training, foreign military financing, or anti-terrorism assistance, encourage civilian supremacy over the armed forces and support the shift of the armed forces’ orientation away from internal security. Robustly monitor the provision of all such aid, and resume bans on US assistance should allegations of serious abuses by the armed forces not be credibly investigated and prosecuted, including of allegations of abuse by those with command responsibility.
* Call on the Indonesian government to release complete and detailed information on military budgets and spending, and convey support for a more transparent Military Business Oversight Team, the elements of which should include greater independence, the public release of all financial and legal audits, mandatory reporting on the activities of the team, and civil society participation.
*4. Domestic Workers*
In June 2009 the US ranked Indonesia in “Tier 2″ in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, citing its inadequate efforts to prevent and respond to human trafficking, particularly in the area of domestic servitude both at home and abroad. More than a million Indonesian women work abroad in Malaysia, Singapore, and the Middle East as live-in domestic workers. Several Human Rights Watch reports in the past five years have documented how these women often encounter a range of abuses, including recruitment-related abuses, labor exploitation, psychological, physical, and sexual abuse, and situations of forced labor and slavery-like conditions. Indonesia contributes to the abuses its migrant workers face through its failure to regulate, monitor, and penalize the recruitment agencies that send its workers abroad, often after charging workers significant recruitment fees that leave them heavily indebted to their employers and providing them with deceptive or incomplete information about the work conditions they will face and avenues for recourse should they encounter abuse.
Following several high-profile cases of abuse and deaths of domestic workers, Indonesia froze new migration of domestic workers to both Malaysia and Kuwait in 2009 pending the adoption of strengthened protections through bilateral agreements. Indonesia is on the verge of concluding negotiations to revise a 2006 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Malaysia on migrant domestic workers. The current draft contains new provisions to protect migrant women’s right to keep their passports and to have a weekly day of rest, but fails to outline a strategy for making important national-level labor and immigration reforms, or to address the crucial issue of exorbitant recruitment fees and long-term debt arrangements that put migrant domestic workers at high risk of trafficking and debt bondage.
Domestic workers within Indonesia face significant challenges as well. As Human Rights Watch documented in a February 2009 report, “Workers in the Shadows,” hundreds of thousands of girls in Indonesia, some as young as 11, are employed as domestic workers in other people’s households. Many girls work 14- to 18-hour days, seven days a week, with no day off. Many employers forbid these child domestic workers from leaving the house where they work, withhold paying any salary until the child returns home, and then fail to pay the children at all or pay less than what they promised. In the worst cases, girls are physically, psychologically, and sexually abused by their employers or their employers’ family members. Presently, Indonesia’s labor law excludes all domestic workers from the basic labor rights afforded to formal workers, such as a minimum wage, overtime pay, an eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek, weekly day of rest, and vacation. This exclusion has a discriminatory impact on women and girls, who constitute the vast majority of domestic workers, and devalues domestic work and domestic workers.
As you may be aware, your sister Dr. Maya Soetoro-Ng has also written powerfully on this issue in the Indonesian publication Kompas, calling on Indonesia to implement and enforce minimum labor protections for domestic workers, particularly those who are children, and to compel law enforcement authorities to respond effectively to complaints of abuse by domestic workers. In a promising move, the legislative council of the Indonesian parliament recently placed a Domestic Worker’s Law on the legislative agenda for 2010.
The US has a particular interest in urging Indonesia to improve its human rights record with respect to Indonesian domestic workers at home and abroad. The US Department of Labor has committed to provide $5.5 million towards funding programs on child labor in Indonesia, with a particular focus on child domestic workers. Moreover, the United States has taken a leadership role in fighting trafficking in persons around the world and has devoted significant attention and funding to Indonesia in particular.
We urge you to:
* Congratulate the Indonesian parliament on placing the Domestic Worker’s Law on its agenda.
* Encourage President Yudhoyono to support a strong law that provides domestic workers with the same basic labor protections as workers in the formal sector and contains special protections for child domestic workers.
* Make effective reforms to Indonesia’s recruitment practices a central factor in Indonesia’s tier ranking in the 2010 TIP report.
* Urge President Yudhoyono to strengthen protections for its citizens who pursue domestic work abroad, emphasizing the need to effectively regulate and monitor the behavior of recruitment agencies, including their charging of recruitment fees. The Indonesian government should take advantage of opportunities to make such reforms as it revises Law 39 on migration this year and as it finalizes bilateral agreements with Malaysia, Kuwait, and other destination countries.
*5. The Climate Change Agenda and Corruption*
Human Rights Watch recognizes that climate change initiatives will be a key component of the US-Indonesia Comprehensive Partnership and that increased US cooperation with Indonesia and its forestry sector will be vital for the attainment of both countries’ climate change goals in the coming years. Not only has your administration expressed a preference for a cap-and-trade system, but Indonesia’s Copenhagen pledge to reduce its emissions by 26 percent is premised largely on plans to reduce deforestation and land clearing. However, we remain deeply concerned that if Indonesia fails to implement reforms, any influx of US funds from carbon trading and REDD “readiness” programs would further entrench the widespread corruption and weak governance that have plagued Indonesia’s attempts at reforms in forestry, finance, and law enforcement for the past decade. In turn, this corruption weakens the protection and enjoyment of human rights in Indonesia.
Human Rights Watch’s December 2009 report, “Wild Money: The Human Rights Consequences of Illegal Logging and Corruption in Indonesia’s Forestry Sector,” used the Indonesian government’s own data to demonstrate that roughly half of the timber harvested annually in Indonesia is illegal and that the government lost some $2 billion in one year alone (in 2006, the most recent year for which reliable data is available) due to corruption and mismanagement. Significantly, this figure, though staggering, does not include losses from tax arrears and uncollected penalties, nor from smuggled timber. Indonesian officials from the Ministry of Forestry have admitted that they have no mechanism for compelling local forest offices to report data on timber production and revenue collection, creating a lack of reliable data that calls into question the government’s ability to deliver verifiable emission reductions. Our research found that this corruption and foregone revenue also perpetuate a downward spiral of impunity by impeding transparency and civilian oversight and entrenching corruption in law enforcement and the judiciary. Further, the loss of billions of dollars in revenue cripples the government of Indonesia’s ability to provide core services to its citizens, such as basic health care.
During his first administration, President Yudhoyono took significant steps to reform the forestry sector and combat corruption. In addition, the US has provided Indonesia with a strong incentive to redouble reform efforts by amending the Lacey Act to prohibit importation of illegally harvested wood products, which will encourage Indonesia to adopt a “timber legality verification system” including chain of custody and revenue monitoring. While these are important steps, they also suffer from significant shortcomings. For example, the verification system applies only to large (> 50,000 ha) logging concessions, which currently make up less than one-fifth of Indonesia’s timber supply. The vast majority of Indonesian timber comes from forest clearing for plantations, which is intended to generate palm oil for biofuels and is not covered under the verification system.
Moreover, over the course of the last several months, Indonesia’s successful anti-corruption commission (Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, or KPK) has become the target of significant backlash from the national police, the Attorney General’s Office, and members of parliament, as demonstrated by an apparent attempt by senior law enforcement officials to frame two KPK deputies on charges of extortion and abuse of power in fall 2009. In the wake of the KPK controversy, President Yudhoyono did little to promote accountability, failing to call for any of the officials caught on a wiretapped phone conversation plotting to frame the KPK deputies to be investigated on criminal charges or for the implementation of any immediate reforms to prevent such backlash from impairing the KPK’s work. These events call into question President Yudhoyono’s willingness to deliver on his anti-corruption agenda and make it all the more critical that the US require Indonesia to implement certain reforms in the forestry sector before providing it with increased climate change funding.
We urge you to:
* Link any climate change “capacity building” funding to Indonesia to measurable and verifiable benchmarks for data collection and accuracy, transparency, and outside oversight. * Ensure that any REDD scheme in which the US participates in Indonesia employs a rigorous and internationally recognized certification system.
* Urge Indonesia to apply the Timber Legality Verification System to all timber sources from point of harvest to sale in order to comply with the import requirements of the Lacey Act and to contribute to real reductions in illegal logging.
* Urge President Yudhoyono to take strong steps to safeguard the viability of existing anti-corruption initiatives, including the anti-corruption commission, and to support the commission’s efforts to reduce corruption in law enforcement institutions, in order ensure that any influx of climate change funds does not exacerbate corruption or have a negative impact on governance and human rights.
In these ways, we hope you will reaffirm that as the United States deepens its engagement in Indonesia, it will do so in a way that enhances its respect for and protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the Indonesian people, strengthening both the rule of law and respect for democratic principles in a critical strategic partner in the years ahead.
Sincerely,
Kenneth Roth
Executive Director
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
