SUARA BAPTIS DI TANAH PAPUA

Since May 2010 and particularly in May and June, an unknown number of Papuans, ranging from several hundreds to several thousands, have been reported to be internally displaced in the central highlands region of Puncak Jaya, where the government of Indonesia has been conducting counter-insurgency operations against rebels of the OPM (Free Papua Movement). Fleeing the army’s “sweeping operations”, which are often accompanied by severe human rights violations, most internally displaced people (IDPs) have taken shelter in the jungle, where they have very limited or no access to basic necessities of life including food, shelter, water and health care. Following past waves of violence, displaced Papuans living in similar conditions have faced malnutrition, disease and sometimes death.

The high level of violence and destruction carried out by the armed forces, such as the burning of homes and properties, the destruction of vegetable gardens and other means of livelihoods including livestock, makes the prospects of recovery and durable solutions poor. The recovery process is also hampered by the lack of access to basic services in these very remote places.

Lack of independent access to the conflict-affected areas in the central highlands makes it difficult to get any reliable estimates on the number of people affected by the military operations, or to assess the IDPs’ humanitarian needs and to provide assistance. The government generally does not recognise people displaced by conflict in Papua as IDPs and provides no specific assistance.

Host communities and church groups are the main providers of assistance, but the church groups as well as human rights NGOs have often been viewed with suspicion by the government, which has considered some as too close to the OPM and as supporting separatism. Activities of international organisations are also limited and closely monitored. Since 2009, a number of international organisations, including ICRC and more recently Cordaid, have been banned from the Papuan provinces.


Background
Indonesia gained independence shortly after the end of World War II, but the Netherlands retained control over the western part of the island of New Guinea, then known as Dutch West Guinea. Under pressure from the international community and in particular the United States, which needed an ally in the region in its fight against communism, the Netherlands handed over control of the resource-rich colony to a transitional UN administration in 1962.

Indonesia assumed control of Papua in 1963 and started asserting its authority, mainly through military force. Estimates of the number of Papuans who died as a result of military operations by the Indonesian army between 1962 and 1969 range from several thousands to 30,000 (Drooglever, Pieter, 22 September 2010, p.3; Braithwaite, John, March 2010, p.61). This period saw the emergence of the Free Papua Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka or OPM), which in 2010 remains the main armed rebel group in Papua. In 1969, in the controversial UN-supervised Act of Free Choice, representatives carefully selected by the Indonesian government almost unanimously chose to join Indonesia. Papua officially became an Indonesian province known first as West Irian, then Irian Jaya, and finally Papua. In 2003, the province was divided into two smaller provinces, West Papua and Papua.

In 2001, Papua was granted “special autonomy” which entailed an increased share of the revenue generated by the exploitation of its natural resources (Jakarta Post, 19 June 2010). However, an independent assessment conducted six years later concluded that widespread corruption had prevented the special autonomy from making any positive difference to the lives of Papuans (USAID, February 2009, p.78). The extra resources do not appear to have benefited more than a small elite of corrupted government civil servants and have certainly not led to concrete social or economic programmes benefiting indigenous Papuans (CPCS, July 2010, p.18; Braithwaite, John, March 2010, p.87). According to the International Crisis Group (ICG): “Many provisions [of the law] were implemented slowly, poorly or not at all, eroding whatever good will was generated by the law.” (ICG, 11 March 2010, p.4) In August 2010, the government announced that the impact of special autonomy would be evaluated in 2011 (Jakarta Post, 1 August 2010).

Development and human security indicators in Papua are the lowest in Indonesia, with those in the displacement-affected central highlands the worst of all. Health data collected by Médecins du Monde in these areas shows that infant mortality rates are about 85-150 per 1000 live births, and maternal mortality rates are three times higher than in the rest of the country at 500-1000 per 100,000 births (Rees, Susan J.; Van de Pas, Remco; Silove, Derrick and Kareth, Moses, 2008, p.641). There is a shortage of doctors but also of medical facilities as well as essential medicines. Water and sanitation facilities are inadequate, in particular in rural areas (USAID, February 2009, p.112) The rate of HIV/AIDS was 1.0 per cent in Papua in 2008, compared to a national average of 0.17 per cent. In the central highlands, the rate was 2.9 per cent, indicating a growing HIV epidemic. According to Médecins du Monde, it may reach five per cent by 2011 (MDM, August 2010, p.3).

Access to education is also a major problem in remote areas most affected by displacement, mainly because of the shortage of schools and teachers. In Puncak Jaya regency in the central highlands, it is estimated that 49 per cent of children never attended or completed primary school (Mollet, Julius Ary 2007, p.158). Children’s access to education is further limited by recurrent episodes of forced displacement and by the destruction of schools during sweeping operations (HRW, 5 July 2007, p.32).

Disillusioned with special autonomy, and facing increasing demographic, economic, social, political and military pressures, many Papuans are again pinning their hopes on independence. In June 2010, the Papuan People’s Council (MRP), a body established under the special autonomy legislation to protect Papuan cultural values, made a list of recommendations to the Papua legislature which included a rejection of special autonomy, mediation from the international community, and a referendum on Papua’s independence (Jakarta Globe, 30 August 2010). Developments outside Papua have also bolstered demands for independence. In June 2010, the Vanuatu parliament passed an act calling on its government to develop policies to support Papua’s independence struggle. In particular, Vanuatu intends through the UN General Assembly to request an “advisory opinion” from the International Court of Justice on the legality of Indonesia’s claim of sovereignty over Papua (ABC, 21 June 2010).


Back to top
Causes of displacement
Indigenous Papuans have been forced from their homes in a number of ways, due to the pressure imposed on them by the economic, political and security policies of the Indonesian government. The rates of forced displacements in Papua have varied according to political tensions and the intensity of military operations.

They have fled the repressive and often disproportionate actions of a government which has not tolerated any expression of political opposition. Any resistance to Jakarta’s development or political plans has been met since 1963 by repeated counter-insurgency campaigns and security measures that have often left people no choice but to flee their homes. Thousands of Papuans have sought refuge across the border in Papua New Guinea (PNG) since 1968, with large-scale movements occurring in 1977, 1984-85 and 2000-01. As of 2010, it is estimated that 10,000 Papuan refugees remain in PNG, most of them living in about 20 remote settlements along the Indonesia-PNG border and in the East Awin’s settlement established further away from the border in 1987. Those displaced in border settlements, some of which are officially located on the Indonesian side, lack any official status but are generally protected against refoulement (JRS, April 2009, p.8; RNZI, 25 June 2010).

Development projects and related inward migration
Development projects have caused displacement directly, and have also caused conflict between the armed forces charged with the security of the projects and the indigenous people affected by them. Many indigenous Papuans have been evicted from their lands, often without any compensation, by mining or logging companies.
A USAID assessment noted that: “Decision making in relation to land and natural resources favours the attraction of investment for development rather than protection of customary ownership.” (USAID, February 2009, p.107) There is currently no clear framework for dealing with customary land rights or land certificates and most indigenous people have no understanding of their rights (ICG, 19 July 2007, p.5).

Resource-rich Papua has since 1963 provided huge revenues for the Indonesian government and in particular for the armed forces, who have seized the revenue opportunities provided by illegal logging and security needs of multinational mining companies such as the US-based Freeport McMoRan Copper & Gold (Freeport). Since 1967, Freeport has been reported to take land away from indigenous people without any consultation and forcibly resettle them with little if any compensation (Braithwaite, John, March 2010, p.71). Freeport is currently exploiting the Grasberg mine in the Timika area, which is reported to have caused considerable environmental degradation, the massive displacement of the indigenous Amungme and Komoro peoples, and the destruction of their economies and livelihoods. Following riots in 1996, Freeport set up a community development fund aimed at improving local people’s standard of living. The fund is, however, reported to have caused social disharmony and fuelled conflict between local tribes competing to access it (NYT, 27 December 2005; Heidbüchel, Esther, 2007, p. 152).

Freeport has reportedly become a major driver of conflict, not only by displacing, dispossessing and impoverishing local communities, but also by ensuring security by providing revenue opportunities to the armed forces which have no interest in a conflict-free environment (Braithwaite, John, March 2010, p.71). Freeport has been targeted in several attacks, generally attributed to Papuan separatists. However, some of these attacks have been linked to a rivalry between the police and the armed forces who are competing for lucrative security contracts (Braithwaite, John, March 2010, p.69; Jakarta Post, 26 January 2010; Reuters, 16 July 2009, BBC, 14 July 2009). The armed forces were replaced by the police as provider of Freeport’s security following a shooting incident in 2002, but put back in charge after another shooting incident resulted in the death of an Australian Freeport employee in July 2009 (ICG, 11 March 2010, p.19).

Tensions have also been high between indigenous Papuans and settlers from other regions of Indonesia. The influx of settlers attracted by Papua’s economic opportunities has compounded competition for land, with the establishment of settlements resulting in the eviction of indigenous Papuans from their land. Indigenous groups displaced by development projects have viewed settlers as an additional threat to the sustainability of their livelihoods, culture and identity. They have also resented the hiring of outsiders in the plantations and mines.

While government-sponsored transmigration of settlers from other regions ceased at the end of the 1990s, spontaneous migration continued unabated. The percentage of migrants rose from only four per cent in 1970 to 35 per cent in 2000; it is expected to reach 50 per cent in 2011 (USAID, 20 February 2009, p.37). The relationship between Indonesian migrants and indigenous Papuans, who also have diverging views on the province’s autonomy, has reportedly deteriorated in the past years. During 2010, in several incidents, migrants were attacked and killed by Papuans (IRIN, 13 August 2010; ICG, 16 June 2008, p.1).

Counter-insurgency and human rights violations in the central highlands
The OPM has waged low-level warfare against the security forces since the 1960s, but has a very limited number of fighters and represents no significant military threat. During the 1970s and 1980s counter-insurgency campaigns against the OPM and villages suspected of supporting it resulted in large-scale human rights violations including extrajudicial killings, torture and rape, and also forced displacement (HRW, 5 July 2007, pp.11-12).

In its fight against the OPM, the Indonesian army has reportedly sought to cut support to the rebels by subjecting communities to physical abuse, burning of homes and properties, and destruction of means of livelihoods including vegetable gardens and livestock. There is reportedly little distinction between villagers and OPM rebels and supporters during counter-insurgency operations (RSC, September 2007, p.49). In 2007, HRW documented a number of cases of extrajudicial killings committed by the police and the armed forces during their counter-insurgency operations, as well as other abuses including sexual violence against women and girls, including rapes (HRW, 5 July 2007, pp.4-5).

Following a visit to Indonesia in November 2007, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment expressed serious concern about credible allegations of the use of excessive force by BRIMOB mobile paramilitary units which “have routinely been engaging in largely indiscriminate village ‘sweeping’ operations in search of alleged independence activists and their supporters, or raids on university boarding houses, using excessive force” (UN SR, 10 March 2008, p.15).

The Special Rapporteur also noted with concern the “quasi-total impunity” enjoyed by security forces and the limited information available due to travel restrictions (UN SR, 10 March 2008, p.15). The TNI and in particular its elite Kopassus special force, which has been held responsible for numerous human rights violations since the 1990s in East Timor and Aceh, are reported to enjoy near-total impunity in Papua. According to HRW, which documented numerous violations committed by Kopassus soldiers against Papuans in Merauke town in 2009, “a lack of accountability is still the norm” (HRW, 24 June 2009, p.2). With regards to units operating in the central highlands, HRW noted that “brutality is still all too common among soldiers” and that they often “feel confident that they are above the law” (HRW, 5 July 2007, p.52).

Since 2009, military operations in the central highlands have reportedly continued to be accompanied by human rights violations. In June 2009, sweeping operations by BRIMOB units in Puncak Jaya which resulted in forced displacement reportedly also involved a number of other human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, burning of homes and livestock, kidnapping and raping of seven girls (WPAT, June 2009). More recently, in May and June 2010, BRIMOB and TNI reportedly killed two civilians, raping a pregnant woman, burning houses and churches, killing all livestock in three villages and forcing civilians to work for them (WPAT, 30 June 2010, pp.1-2, WPAT, 31 May 2010, p.2).

In January 2010, the national human rights commission Komnas HAM reported a “drastic decline” in the human rights situation in Papua. According to Komnas HAM, as a result of the military operations conducted in the region since 2004: “…The people there are traumatised and unable to carry on with their activities, with some of them leaving the area in search of tranquility elsewhere.” (West Papua Media Alerts, 11 August 2010)

According to ICG, much of the new violence is the result of the radicalisation a of group of students from the central highlands, the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), who have rejected any unmediated dialogue with the Indonesian government and turned to violence as a means to achieve their objective of a referendum on independence (ICG, 11 March 2010, p.i). This view has been disputed by the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney, which in a report published in July 2010 describes the KNPB as radical in its ambitions for Papua’s independence, but peaceful in the means it uses and advocates. The report denounces ICG’s report as having encouraged the army’s sweeping operations in the central highlands by strengthening “the Indonesian government position that they are fighting violent guerrillas in West Papua rather than a legitimate, popularly-backed resistance movement” while ignoring the consequences of these operations on the civilian population (CPCS, July 2010, pp.3-25). According to ICG, reports of the impacts of security operations have sometimes been exaggerated (ICG, 11 March 2010, p.13).


Back to top
IDP population figures and displacement patterns
The lack of access of international or independent observers to the conflict-affected areas, mainly in the central highlands, has made it difficult to assess the number of internally displaced people (IDPs) and their needs (HRW, 5 July 2007, p.32). Between 2001 and 2007, counter-insurgency operations by security forces are believed to have displaced at least 20,000 people, mainly in Puncak Jaya but also in other places such as Wasior (Chauvel, Richard, 2008, p.170). The current number of IDPs is unknown but available information suggests that since 2009, displacement incidents caused by military operations in the central highlands, and in particular Puncak Jaya regency, have been on the increase. These operations are reported to have resulted in the displacement of several thousands of people (WPAT, July 2010, February 2009).

The most recent displacements were reported between May and June 2010 as a result of new military sweeping operations in the central highlands (WPAT, July 2010, p.1). According to a consultant for Human Rights Watch, people in Puncak Jaya terrorised by the army’s operations fled threats of torture and the destruction of their houses (RNZI, 15 June 2010). The operations reportedly resulted in the displacement of “a large number of civilians” who fled their homes to seek refuge in other villages, towns or in the forest. It was estimated that “thousands of people” were hiding in the forests. More specifically, villagers from Yambi, Agandugume and Ilala Peak were reported to have fled to Majesty Towogi district. Some civilians from Tingginambut district sought refuge in the forests while others went to Kuyawagiastir, Tiom and Lani in Jaya district (WPAT, 30 June 2010, pp.1-2). As of September 2010, several hundreds of people were reportedly still hiding in the jungle (Greenleft, 19 September 2010).

Compared to the relatively low intensity of the conflict, the number of people displaced has been important. This is mainly explained by “the disproportionate nature of the military response with sweeping operations often failing to distinguish between civilians and OPM militants” (Chauvel, Richard, 2008, p. 170). Internal displacement has also tended to persist long after the conflicts or military operations have ended. Up to 16,000 people displaced in 2005 had not returned as of March 2007 (PBI, March 2007). A majority of the estimated 5,000 people displaced in June 2001 by military sweeping operations in Wasior had not returned to their homes more than a year and a half later (Chauvel, Richard, 2008, p.164).

Displacement has also been caused by tribes clashing for various reasons. In May 2010, an unknown number of people fled their homes in the Timika region due to clashes between rival tribes. The people displaced sought refuge in a nearby Indonesian Air Force base (Jakarta Globe, 24 May 2010, Jakarta Post, 25 May 2010).


Back to top
Physical security and access to basic necessities of IDPs
When fleeing military operations and related violations, many IDPs have sought shelter for weeks or months in the jungle or the mountains until they feel it is safe to return. There, the displaced are reported to be struggling to survive, with no or very limited access to basic necessities of life such as food, drinking water, clothing, housing and health care. Some form of assistance is sometimes provided by host communities or local authorities, but the security forces have also at times been reported to prevent assistance from reaching the displaced.

Although there is little information available on the condition and needs of those displaced in Puncak Jaya in May and June 2010, it is believed that most are denied access to food, water, shelter and health care. Their inadequate living conditions are putting them at severe risk of malnutrition, disease and possibly death.

Over the years, hundreds of IDPs have reportedly died while in displacement as a result of starvation, lack of medical assistance to treat injuries or diseases. Lack of independent access makes it difficult to reliably estimate the number of deaths (HRW, 5 July 2007, p. 32). In June 2009, it was reported that an unknown number of IDPs who had sought refuge in the jungle had died due to a lack of food and access to medical care (WPAT, 22 July 2009). At least 2,000 out of the 5,000 people who fled their homes in Puncak Jaya in December 2006 were still unable to return three months later. Deprived of any assistance, at least four IDPs had reportedly died due to lack of food and medical assistance (ECPC, 29 January 2007; ABC, 19 February 2007). Out of the estimated 20,000 people who fled their homes in mid-2004 following counter-insurgency operations in Puncak Jaya, 6,000 were reported to have remained displaced five months later living in desperate conditions, short of food and medicine. A total of 78 IDPs reportedly died due to starvation or illness (Chauvel, Richard, 2008, p. 167; Elsham News Service, 21 December 2004; AI, 6 December 2004). One year earlier, 42 people were reported to have died in makeshift camps set up in the jungle near Wamena following a police attack on 25 villages suspected of harbouring suspects of an attack on a police arsenal in Wamena (Chauvel, Richard, 2008, 165).


Back to top
Prospects for durable solutions
The high level of violence and destruction by the armed forces, combined with the lack of assistance offered to the displaced, makes the prospects of recovery and durable solutions poor.

IDPs have been forced into hiding to avoid extrajudicial killings and other violations of their rights. Checkpoints, roadblocks and the recurrent “sweeping” operations have also violated the freedom of movement of civilians including IDPs. When people have finally returned home, often months after being initially displaced, they have received little or no support from the government (HRW, 5 July 2007, pp. 30-34). Most of the time, no reparation or compensation has been offered, nor any assistance to rebuild homes and restart a livelihood.

The recovery process is also hampered by the lack of access to basic services in these very remote places. A mission by the Office of Justice and Peace (SKP) at the end of 2008 in Kwiyawage sub-district, Puncak Jaya, to assist people displaced by military operations in 2003 who had managed to return six months later, showed that their nutritional status appeared to be good, but that they had very little access to medical care. There was no doctor in the sub-district and the only health facility serving the community had insufficient medicine supplies. Other issues of concern were the lack of potable water and sub-standard sanitation facilities. Local authorities offered financial assistance amounting to $85 (Rp.700,000) per family to a number of returnees (SKP, 25 November 2008).


Back to top
National response
The security forces and the government do not generally recognise people displaced by conflict in the Papuan provinces as IDPs, and so the government fails to recognise its obligations towards IDPs under international humanitarian and human rights law (RSC, September 2007, p.12). Government access restrictions to the areas affected by conflict and displacement have made it difficult for independent monitors and agencies to assess the humanitarian needs of the displaced people and provide assistance (RFK Center for Human Rights, March 2005).

Most of the assistance to IDPs is provided by host communities, church associations and sometimes local authorities, who generally lack sufficient resources. In May 2009, the head of Puncak Jaya regency criticised the security operations for putting too much of a strain on the regency’s budget, because of the costs of the logistical support to the operations but also because funds were needed to assist people displaced as a result of these operations (ICG, 11 March 2010).
Security forces have reportedly at times prevented assistance reaching the displaced or have used it for themselves (Chauvel, Richard, 2008, p. 170; WPAT, 31 May 2010, p.2). The armed forces have also tried to prevent assistance from being delivered to IDPs by denying or playing down the consequences of military operations. When in early 2007 church officials reported that up to 5,000 people had fled their homes in Puncak Jaya and that a large number were in need of humanitarian assistance, local government officials promised to assist people to return and provide food assistance (ECPC, 29 January 2007). However, the military commander accused the church officials of lying and said humanitarian assistance would only be provided if the claims were proved to be true (Jakarta Post, 2 February 2007). In 2005, church groups in Papua accused the security forces of using money allocated to development and humanitarian programmes to finance military operations (The Age, 16 March 2005).

A number of actors have advocated that the government shift from the current military strategy to a genuine dialogue with Papuans, and pay greater attention to issues of human rights and social justice. In August 2010, Komnas HAM and Papuan church leaders urged the security forces to end military operations in Puncak Jaya (Jakarta Post, 18 August 2010). Through their presence in remote areas, church groups are often the only parties able to document and report on violations and displacement incidents. For the security forces, church and human rights groups and OPM are seen as closely linked and all are considered as in favour of separatism (Chauvel, Richard, 2008, p. 171; Braithwaite, John, March 2010, p. 125). As a result, Indonesia-based human rights organisations present in Papua are frequently harassed and victims of intimidation by the security forces (RSC, September 2007, p.11). In May 2010, the Puncak Jaya head of regency publicly criticised unnamed “domestic as well as foreign” NGOs for supporting OPM (WPAT, 31 May 2010, p.2).

Back to top
International response
Following an assessment conducted in Papua in 2005, which noted widening social disparities and growing tensions between the local population and settlers with a risk of increasing the potential for conflict, UNDP and UNICEF started implementing a number of programmes focusing mainly on health, education, nutrition and broader development issues (UNDP, August 2005, p.2).

A number of international organisations are present in the two Papua provinces providing development assistance and working on improving Papuan’s access to basic services but, with the exception of Médecins du Monde (MdM) which has been present since 1998, none is conducting operations in the central highlands where access remains extremely limited (MdM, August 2010).

Since 2009, the Indonesian government has sent strong signals that it is further tightening control on international organisations present in Papua. In April 2009, ICRC was ordered to close its office in Jayapura, Papua. According to the government, ICRC’s office was “illegal” as the organisation lacked the proper documentation (Jakarta Post, 25 April 2009). In September 2010, the government refused to extend Cordaid’s authorisation to work in Papua on the suspicion that it was supporting separatism (RNZI, 10 September 2010). Cordaid had been present in Papua for nearly 30 years.

The issue of violence in the Papuan provinces has recently gained visibility in the United States. Following the U.S. government’s decision in July 2010 to resume military assistance to Indonesia’s Kopassus special forces after a ten-year ban, a move which was described by HRW as “…a victory for abusive military worldwide”, 50 members of Congress signed a petition calling on the Obama administration to make Papua a priority (ETAN, 1 August 2010; HRW, 22 July 2010). In September 2010, the U.S. Congress’s Committee on Foreign Affairs organised the first ever hearing on the situation in Papua entitled “Crimes Against Humanity: When Will Indonesia’s Military Be Held Accountable for Deliberate and Systematic Abuses in West Papua?” (U.S. Congress, 27 September 2010).
Back to top

Press Release Report – By Nick Chesterfield – West Papua Media Alerts.

October 4 1800 AEST: Information has just been received from sources in Wamena that Indonesian security forces have shot dead three West Papuan men who were part of the newly formed civil people’s guard. Members of Petapa, the indigenous non-violent security force formed by the Papuan Customary Council to protect West Papuan people engaging in peaceful free expression, were attempting to defuse a tense situation caused by an Indonesian police raid at 0800 local time this morning.

A crowd had gathered outside the Jayawijaya Police headquarters peacefully but vibrantly demanding the return of uniforms and legally approved paraphernalia for the Petapa, or Regional Indigenous Council Civil Bodyguard. Police officers escalated the situation without warning and with full force, as they came running from the Police office firing live rounds into the air and at the crowd according to witnesses interviewed by a local human rights team today.

ISMAIL LOKOBAL, 34, died after being shot in the heart outside the local DAP (Dewan Adat Papua, or Papuan Customary Council) office. POLRI officers had chased the crowd, firing indiscriminately toward them, and chased down most of the victims as they attempted to seek refuge in the DAP office.

AMOS Wetipo, 42 was shot in the head, and FRANS LOKOBAL, 36 was shot in the wrist. Both men are in a critical condition from bloodloss, but it is unknown at time writing if they have been provided medical treatment, or are likely to survive.

LAORENS LOGO, 38; Johanis HESELO, 41; Aleks Wetapo, 35; Oto Wetapo, 36; all members of the Regional Indigenous Council Civil Bodyguard, have been arrested, severely beaten by Police and are being held at Polres Jayawijaya. The situation is being described currently as extremely tense. A dispersal order and curfew is being enforced, but it is unclear whether local people are going to accept the killings.

September 27, 2010 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON, D.C.—FALEOMAVAEGA HOLDS FIRST EVER HEARING REGARDING INDONESIA’S DELIBERATE AND SYSTEMATIC ABUSES IN WEST PAPUA
On September 22, 2010, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment, Rep. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-AS), held a hearing entitled “Crimes Against Humanity: When Will Indonesia’s Military Be Held Accountable for Deliberate and Systematic Abuses in West Papua?”  This was the first hearing ever held in the U.S. Congress on the issue of West Papua. Indonesia’s Ambassador to the U.S., Dino Patti Djalal, said he was “not concerned by the hearing because it was only attended by three Congress people, and that the U.S. government should not change its stance.” “Ambassador Djalal is new to the U.S. and has failed to realize the importance of Wednesday’s hearing,” Faleomavaega said.  “Little does Ambassador Djalal know but as a result of the attention this hearing was given, Papuan leaders met with officials at the National Security Council, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of State, and other Members of Congress whose schedules did not permit them to attend the hearing.” “Regrettably, Ambassador Djalal’s attitude is typical of Indonesian indifference to the serious concerns raised at the hearing.  More than 50 Members of the U.S. Congress are so concerned by Indonesia’s failure to implement Special Autonomy that they joined with Chairman Donald Payne of the Subcommittee on Africa and myself to urge President Obama to make the issue of West Papua one of his highest priorities when he visits Indonesia.” “The Members of Congress who signed this letter are mostly Members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Ambassador Djalal’s remarks are really an affront to every person of conscience and color who is committed to ending the abuse and resolving the conflict in West Papua.” “The people of West Papua have suffered long enough at the hands of Indonesia’s brutal military and police forces, and many experts suggest that West Papuans have been subjected to genocide.  Whether or not genocide has taken place, one thing is clear.  Indonesia’s military has committed indisputable crimes against humanity through the murder, torture and rape of more than 100,000 West Papuans.” “While President SBY inherited a very difficult situation, I am disappointed that he has not been able to get his military under control and prevent further abuses in West Papua.  I am also disappointed that he has not implemented Special Autonomy as promised.  While Ambassador Djalal implies that the UN has already determined the status of West Papua, nothing could be further from the truth.” “This is no issue of territorial integrity.  West Papua was a former Dutch colony for some 100 years just as East Timor was a former Portuguese colony just as Indonesia was a former colony of the Netherlands.  Because of its status as a former colony, East Timor achieved its independence from Indonesia in 2002 through a referendum sanctioned by the United Nations (UN), despite Indonesia’s serious objections over East Timor’s right to self-determination.” “In contrast, in 1962 the United States pressured the Dutch to turn over control of West Papua to the United Nations.  Under the U.S.-brokered deal, Indonesia was to ‘make arrangements with the assistance and participation of the United Nations’ to give Papuans an opportunity to determine whether they wished to become part of Indonesia or not.” “In what became known as the Act of No Choice carried out in 1969, 1025 West Papua elders under heavy military surveillance were selected to vote on behalf of 809,327 West Papuans regarding the territory’s political status.  In spite of serious violations of the UN Charter and no broad-based referendum, West Papua was forced to become a part of Indonesia by the barrel of a gun.”  “According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), ‘declassified documents released in July 2004 indicate that the United States supported Indonesia’s take-over of Papua in the lead up to the 1969 Act of Free Choice even as it was understood that such a move was likely unpopular with Papuans. The documents reportedly indicate that the United States estimated that between 85% and 90% of Papuans were opposed to Indonesian rule and that as a result the Indonesians were incapable of winning an open referendum at the time of Papua’s transition from Dutch colonial rule. Such steps were evidently considered necessary to maintain the support of Suharto’s Indonesia during the Cold War.’” “Today, the U.S. provides millions of dollars in aid to Indonesia and its military but Indonesia will not allow Members of the U.S. Congress to visit Jayapura in West Papua.  This is wrong and should not be tolerated by the U.S.” “Indonesia should get serious about West Papua, and I will do everything I can to keep this issue in the spotlight, especially given that many Samoans served as missionaries to West Papua and brought Christianity to the islands.  Some of my Samoan relatives are buried in West Papua and their service and sacrifice compels me to do what I can for the people they loved.” “According to CRS, ‘migration by non-Melanesian Indonesians from elsewhere in the nation appears to be a critical part of the mounting tensions.  By some accounts Melanesian Papuans will be in the minority in their homeland by 2015.’” “We cannot allow this to happen.  While there is so much more I want to say about the commercial exploitation of West Papua’s renowned mineral wealth which includes vast reserves of gold, copper, nickel, oil and gas and Freeport USA’s own shameful role in this exploitation, for now I want to commend the West Papuans who testified at last week’s hearing.” “Mr. Octovianus Mote, Founder of the West Papua Action Network and President of the Papua Resource Center; Mr. Henkie Rumbewas, International Advocate of the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA); Mr. Salamon Maurits Yumame, Head of FORDEM (The Democratic Forum); S. Eben Kirksey, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor of The Graduate Center, The City University of New York testified in support of and on behalf of the people of West Papua, making it plain to the U.S. Congress that Indonesia has failed to implement the Special Autonomy law which was passed in 2001.  Consequently, they urged that a new dialogue should take place to determine a way forward.” “Sophie Richardson, Ph.D., Asia Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch addressed the issue of ongoing human rights abuses.  Pieter Drooglever, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Institute of Netherlands History, provided an historical background of events which have led to division and discord.” “Mr. Nicholas Simeone Messet, a West Papuan who has lived in Sweden for the past 38 years or so, said that West Papuans are ‘lazy’ and should accept some of the blame for the failure of Special Autonomy.  In my opinion is it is wrong to blame the oppressed.” “In his statement before the UN against Apartheid, Nelson Mandela said, ‘It will forever remain an accusation and challenge to all men and women of conscience that it took so long as it has before all of us stood up to say enough is enough.’ This is how I feel about West Papua.  Others feel the same, despite Ambassador Djalal’s objectionable remarks which implied that no one really cares since Indonesia has more friends than critics in the U.S. Congress.” “For the Ambassador’s information, 50 Members of the U.S. Congress as well as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Anan and more than 174 parliamentarians and 80 nongovernmental agencies from around the world have joined together to call upon Indonesia to end the violence and resolve the problems in West Papua.  Simply put, this issue is not going away until Indonesia is held accountable, and I have every confidence that President Obama will, in fact, seek dialogue.” “Until then, my thoughts and prayers are with the people of West Papua who only want what we all want – the right to live in peace and pursue happiness.  In response to the hearing, I have received word that the families of some of our West Papuan witnesses have been visited by Indonesia police forces.  I hope this is not the case but, for precautionary purposes, I am asking our U.S. Embassy in Jakarta to look into this disturbing report.” “As a matter of record, I am also including the full text of my remarks which provide a detailed accounting of the purpose of this hearing,” Faleomavaega concluded.  ATTACHMENT STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTE “Crimes Against Humanity: When Will Indonesia’s Military Be Held Accountable for Deliberate and Systematic Abuses in West Papua?” September 22, 2010 To my knowledge, today’s hearing is historic.  This hearing is the first hearing ever held in the U.S. Congress that gives voice to the people of West Papua.  Since 1969, the people of West Papua have been deliberately and systematically subjected to slow-motion genocide by Indonesian military forces yet Indonesia declares that the issue is an internal matter while the U.S. Department of State “recognizes and respects the territorial integrity of Indonesia.”  The truth is, this is no issue of territorial integrity or an internal matter, and the record is clear on this point. West Papua was a former Dutch colony for some 100 years just as East Timor was a former Portuguese colony just as Indonesia was a former colony of the Netherlands.  Because of its status as a former colony, East Timor achieved its independence from Indonesia in 2002 through a referendum sanctioned by the United Nations (UN), despite Indonesia’s serious objections over East Timor’s right to self-determination. In contrast, in 1962 the United States pressured the Dutch to turn over control of West Papua to the United Nations.  Under the U.S.-brokered deal, Indonesia was to “make arrangements with the assistance and participation of the United Nations” to give Papuans an opportunity to determine whether they wished to become part of Indonesia or not. In what became known as the Act of No Choice carried out in 1969, 1025 West Papua elders under heavy military surveillance were selected to vote on behalf of 809,327 West Papuans regarding the territory’s political status.  In spite of serious violations of the UN Charter and no broad-based referendum, West Papua was forced to become a part of Indonesia by the barrel of a gun.  According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “declassified documents released in July 2004 indicate that the United States supported Indonesia’s take-over of Papua in the lead up to the 1969 Act of Free Choice even as it was understood that such a move was likely unpopular with Papuans. The documents reportedly indicate that the United States estimated that between 85% and 90% of Papuans were opposed to Indonesian rule and that as a result the Indonesians were incapable of winning an open referendum at the time of Papua’s transition from Dutch colonial rule. Such steps were evidently considered necessary to maintain the support of Suharto’s Indonesia during the Cold War.” Bluntly put, in exchange for Suharto’s anti-communist stance, the United States expended the hopes and dreams and lives of some 100,000 Papuans who consequently died as a result of Indonesian military rule.  Although some challenge this estimate it is an indisputable fact that Indonesia has deliberately and systematically committed crimes against humanity and has yet to be held accountable. While I have expressed my concern that there is strong indication that the Indonesian government has committed genocide against the Papuans, I am disappointed that the U.S. Department of State requested that I omit the word ‘genocide’ in the initial title I put forward for this hearing.  The State Department requested a change in title based on the assertion that ‘genocide’ is a legal term. Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.” This definition of genocide under international law accurately describes the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Indonesia’s military, whether the U.S. State Department agrees or not.  But given U.S. complicity, it is little wonder that every Administration wishes to distance itself from this ugliness.   As Joseph Conrad wrote in his book The Heart of Darkness, “The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking it away from those who have a different complexion or slightly flatter noses than ourselves, is not a pretty thing when you look into it too much.” When you look into it too much, nothing about Indonesia’s ruthless brutality or U.S. complicity is a pretty thing.  In 2007, I led a Congressional Delegation (CODEL) to Indonesia on the personal promise of President SBY and Vice President Kalla that I would be granted 5 days to visit Biak, Manokwari, and, most importantly, Jayapura, in support of efforts to implement special autonomy that was approved by the government of Indonesia since 2001. However, while enroute to Jakarta, I received word that the Indonesian government would only grant 3 days for my visit.  Upon my arrival on November 25, 2007, I was informed that I would be granted only 1 day and that I would not be allowed to visit Jayapura.  As it played out, I was granted 2 hours in Biak and 10 minutes in Manokwari. In Biak, I met with Governor Suebu, and other traditional, religious and local leaders hand-selected by the government.  Other Papuans, like Chief Tom Beanal and Mr. Willie Mandowen were detained by the military until my office interceded.  U.S. Ambassador Cameron Hume and I also had to make our way through a military barricade because Indonesia military forces (TNI) had blocked Papuans from meeting with me.  For the record, I am submitting photos showing the excessive presence of military force.             In Manokwari, the military presence was even worse.  Prior to my arrival in Manokwari, I was told that I would be meeting with the Governor only to learn upon my arrival that he was in China and had been there for the past 5 days.  Ten minutes later, I was put on a plane while the TNI, in full riot gear, forcefully kept the Papuans from meaningful dialogue.  At this time, I would like to share with my colleagues some video tape of my visit in 2007.             After this experience and upon my return to Washington, I wrote to President SBY expressing my disappointment but Jakarta never responded to my letter of December 12, 2007.  On March 5, 2008, Chairman Donald Payne of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa joined with me in sending another letter to President SBY which expressed our deep concern about Indonesia’s misuse of military force.  We included photographs and a DVD of my experience while in Biak and Manokwari.  Again, Jakarta did not bother to reply.             On March 5, 2008, Chairman Payne and I also wrote to U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and included a copy of our letter to President SBY as well as the DVD and photographs.  Despite the serious concerns we raised about Indonesia’s failure to live up to its promises to allow Members of Congress access to Jayapura and our request to restrict funding to train Indonesia’s military forces, his reply of April 2, 2008 was trite and indifferent, as if West Papua is of no consequence.  He concluded his letter by erroneously stating, “TNI performance on human rights has improved dramatically.”  Copies of these letters as well as the photographs and DVD are included for the record.  Copies of our materials which we sent on March 6, 2008 to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on State and Foreign Operations, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and the Congressional Black Caucus are also included.              In March 2005, Chairman Payne and I wrote to Secretary General Kofi Annan asking for a review of the United Nations’ conduct in West Papua.  35 other Members of Congress from the Congressional Black Caucus signed the joint letter and I am also submitting this letter for the record.             This year, Chairman Payne and I once more spearheaded an effort calling upon President Obama to deal fairly with the people of West Papua and to meet with the Team of 100 indigenous Papuan leaders during his upcoming visit to Indonesia.  Although our letter of June 9, 2010 was signed by 50 Members of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Department of State could not be bothered to send us a thoughtful reply.  Instead, we received a dismissive letter of August 11, 2010 signed by the Assistant Secretary of Legislative Affairs rather than the U.S. Secretary of State which sends a clear signal that this Administration may not be any different than any other in its response to addressing our grave concerns about West Papua.  As a matter of record, I am including these letters. Also, I am including a video that due to its sensitive subject matter I cannot and will not show.  The video depicts the violent murder of a Papuan who was killed and gutted by the Indonesian Special Police Corp, or Brigade Mobil (BRIMOB), while the victim was still alive and pleading for someone to kill him in order to put him out of his misery.  This isn’t the only murder.  The late Papuan leader Theys Hiyo Eluay was also savagely murdered, and the list of lost lives goes on and on. As Chairman of this Subcommittee, I have been very, very patient.  Yes, I realize the importance of the U.S.-Indonesia relationship.  Indonesia is the most populous Muslim-majority nation in the world and the U.S. has a strong interest in reaching out to the Islamic world.  But our own struggle against Islamist militancy should not come at the expense of the pain and killing and suffering of the people of West Papua.  This is not the America I know.              We can and must do better.  In his statement before the UN against Apartheid, Nelson Mandela said, “It will forever remain an accusation and challenge to all men and women of conscience that it took so long as it has before all of us stood up to say enough is enough.”  This is how I feel about West Papua. It is my sincere hope that today’s hearing will help us find a way forward.  So far, Indonesia has failed miserably to implement Special Autonomy and, as a result, there is a sense of growing frustration among the Papuans, and rightfully so.  According to CRS, “migration by non-Melanesian Indonesians from elsewhere in the nation appears to be a critical part of the mounting tensions.  By some accounts Melanesian Papuans will be in the minority in their homeland by 2015.”             While there is so much more I want to say about the commercial exploitation of West Papua’s renowned mineral wealth which includes vast reserves of gold, copper, nickel, oil and gas and Freeport USA’s own shameful role in this exploitation, I will address these issues in my questioning of our witnesses.             In conclusion, I want to thank Edmund McWilliams, a retired U.S. Senior Foreign Service Officer, who has been a long-time advocate for the people of West Papua.  Mr. McWilliams was unable to be with us today but he has submitted testimony for the record which will be included.             I also want to welcome our Papuan leaders who have flown at considerable expense to testify before this Subcommittee.  I presume none flew at the expense of the Indonesian government but we will find out during these proceedings.  Most of the Papuan leaders who are with us today have lived the struggle.  Others have only recently returned after living in Sweden for some 38 years.  They have since returned home and reclaimed Indonesian citizenship but I am unclear as to their role in a struggle they have given up or never fully lived.  I hope we will be provided an explanation.              For now, I recognize my good friend, the Ranking Member, for any opening statement he may wish to make.

Chairman Faleomavaega, Mr. Manzullo, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today on the situation in Papua.

U.S. Policy

Developments affecting Papua, which includes the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua, are closely followed by the Department of State and represent an important aspect of our overall relations with Indonesia. The United States recognizes and respects the territorial integrity of Indonesia within its current borders and does not support or condone separatism in Papua, or in any other part of the country. At the same time, we strongly support respect for universal human rights within Indonesia, including the right of peaceful assembly, free expression of political views, and the fair and non-discriminatory treatment of ethnic Papuans within Indonesia.
Within this context, we have consistently encouraged the Indonesian government to work with the indigenous Papuan population to address their grievances, resolve conflicts peacefully, and support development and good governance in the Papuan provinces. The Administration believes the full implementation of the 2001 Special Autonomy Law for Papua, which emerged as part of Indonesia’s democratic transition, would help resolve long-standing grievances. We continue to encourage the Indonesian government to work with Papuan authorities to discuss ways to empower Papuans and further implement the Special Autonomy provisions, which grant greater authority to Papuans to administer their own affairs.
Human Rights

Advancing human rights is one of our primary foreign policy objectives not only in Indonesia, but also throughout the world. We believe that respect for human rights helps to strengthen democracy. We want to see the right of peaceful, free expression of political views and freedom of association observed throughout the world, including in Papua.

We monitor allegations of human rights violations in Papua and West Papua, and we report on them in the annual Country Report on Human Rights. With the growth of democracy over the past decade in Indonesia, there has been substantial improvement in respect for human rights, although there remain credible concerns about human rights violations. The improvement includes Papua, although, as our annual reporting has documented, there continues to be some credible allegations of abuse. We regularly engage the Government of Indonesia on the importance of respect for human rights by security forces, and we continue to emphasize our strong support for an open and transparent legal system to look into any claims of excessive use of force. We also urge them to increase accountability for past human rights abuses. We deplore violence committed by armed groups, including in Papua, against civilians and government security forces.

It is critical that independent and objective observers have unrestricted access to Papua in order to monitor developments. At present, Indonesian journalists, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and Indonesian citizens may travel freely to Papua and West Papua. However, the Indonesian government requires that foreign journalists, NGOs, diplomats, and parliamentarians obtain permission to visit Papua. We continue to encourage the Indonesian government to give these groups, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, full and unfettered access to Papua and West Papua.

Papuans are Indonesian citizens and are free to travel to other parts of Indonesia.

Demographic Shifts

Migration from other parts of Indonesia has increased the number of non-Papuan residents to about 40 percent of the current population in Papua and West Papua. The total population of both provinces is 2.4 million, of which 900,000 are migrants. Past government-sponsored transmigration programs, which moved households from more densely populated areas to less populated regions, account for part of the influx. The majority of the population shift has resulted from natural migration trends from Indonesia’s large population centers to Papua where there is relatively low population density. Some Papuans have voiced concerns that the migrants have interfered with their traditional ways of life, land usage, and economic opportunities.

Economic Development

Although the region is rich in natural resources, including gold, copper, natural gas, and timber, Papua lags behind other parts of Indonesia in some key development indicators. Poverty is widespread in Papua and Papua has the lowest level of adult literacy in Indonesia at 74 percent. The region also has a disproportionately high number of HIV/AIDS cases compared with the rest of Indonesia and high rates of infant and maternal mortality.

According to the World Bank, the two greatest challenges to economic development are Papua’s topography and climate—great distances between towns, steep mountains, swampy lowlands, fragile soils, and heavy seasonal rainfall—and its social structure—low population density and cultural fragmentation.

Special Autonomy

Indonesia’s parliament in 2001 granted Special Autonomy to Papua, which, along with Aceh, was one of the two areas in Indonesia that harbored high-profile separatist movements. This law devolved to provincial and local authorities all government functions outside of five national competencies; defense, foreign affairs, religious affairs, justice, and monetary/fiscal policy.

The Special Autonomy Law has not been fully implemented in Papua. Implementation has been delayed due to lack of implementing regulations. In addition, the provincial governments have lacked the capacity to take on certain key responsibilities and some central government ministries have yet to cede their authorities. Although full implementation of Special Autonomy has not yet been realized, Indonesian government officials point to increased funding to Papua, which has totaled Rp 27 trillion or approximately US$3 billion in the past nine years, higher per capita than any other area in Indonesia. The Special Autonomy Law created the Papuan People’s Council (MRP) to protect Papuan culture. Recently, the MRP rejected Special Autonomy, symbolically handing Special Autonomy back to Indonesian authorities. This action had no practical legal effect, but it did highlight the need for increased dialogue between Papua and Jakarta to resolve the region’s outstanding differences.

We continue to encourage the Indonesian government and the provincial governments of Papua and West Papua to fully implement the Special Autonomy Law. This would include the promulgation of implementing regulations for all provisions of the law, central government action to ensure that provincial or local laws take precedence in areas of delegated authority, and actions to increase the capacity for development and good governance. We believe that full implementation would help to address Papuans’ grievances against the central government. Dialogue between central authorities and the indigenous Papuan population could facilitate full implementation of Special Autonomy, and result in actions that would support development and boost good governance in Papua.

U.S. Assistance

The United States is working in partnership with the government of Indonesia and the provincial governments of Papua and West Papua to find ways to address the key developmental challenges of Papua, including increasing good governance, access to quality healthcare and education, and protecting the environment. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) implements programs in Papua to foster improvements in these sectors with activities that total $­­­­11.6 million, or 7 percent of USAID’s budget for Indonesia for fiscal year 2010.

In addition to USAID programs, the Department of State also brings Papuans to the United States for thematic engagement on issues such as resource distribution. Our Fulbright programs have had over 22 grantees from Papua. We also partner with the private sector to leverage resources. For example, in a public-private partnership, the Fulbright-Freeport Scholarship Program has funded 18 individuals from Papua for study in the United States.

Embassy Jakarta maintains a vigorous schedule of engagement with Papua and West Papua. U.S. Mission officers routinely travel to the provinces. Ambassador Marciel, who arrived at post in mid-August, plans to travel to Papua soon after he presents his credentials to the Indonesian government. Officers maintain a wide base of contacts concerning Papua, including central and provincial government officials, human rights activists, military and police personnel, traditional and religious leaders, and NGO staff. In addition to official meetings, Embassy officers conduct regular public outreach in Papua and West Papua.

Conclusion

In closing, I would like to emphasize that Papua plays an important role in our sustained engagement with the Government of Indonesia. While Indonesia’s overall human rights situation has improved along with the country’s rapid democratic development, we are concerned by allegations of human rights violations in Papua and continuously monitor the situation there. We urge increased dialogue between the central government and Papuan leaders and the full implementation of the Special Autonomy Law. We will continue to provide assistance to build a strong economic and social foundation in Papua.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before you today. I am pleased to answer your questions.

Contact: John M. Miller (ETAN) 718-596-7668
Ed McWilliams (WPAT) 401-568-5845 (until Sept. 21), 575-648-2078 (after)

September 15, 2010 - The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) are deeply concerned about the appointment of Dino Patti Djalal as the Indonesia's Ambassador-designate to the United States. We urge President Obama to reject his credentials and urge Jakarta to send an Ambassador untainted by complicity with human rights violations and with greater credibility.

Ambassador Djalal was a defender of the Suharto dictatorship, and his career involved him in brutal repression. While defending the Indonesian security forces in East Timor (now independent Timor-Leste), he would often attack human rights investigators and organizations. He sought to portray the violence there as civil conflict among East Timorese, rather than resulting from repression of resistance to Indonesia's illegal and brutal occupation.

The Suharto dictatorship and the Habibie government that followed promoted Djalal as Indonesia's leading "expert" on East Timor. During that time, Djalal reportedly had close links with the Indonesian army's intelligence agency.

In 1999, during and after East Timor's historic UN-organized vote on independence, Djalal was based in East Timor as the spokesperson for the Satgas P3TT (the Indonesian "Task Force for Popular Consultation in East Timor").  In that capacity he took the lead in the Task Force's political initiatives.

As Task Force spokesman, Djalal quickly emerged as its leading political heavyweight, taking the lead in leveling false accusations against UNAMET (UN Assistance Mission for East Timor). In his official capacity Djalal also served as flack for the militias created and directed by the Indonesian military to terrorize the East Timorese population in the run-up to August 1999 vote. Those militias and their Indonesian security force allies repeatedly attacked East Timorese civilians, burning villages and assaulting churches in attempt to frighten the population into voting against independence. The militias also sought to intimidate the UN teams sent to prepare for the vote and the international media and humanitarian organizations in the country to monitor the process.

As international alarm over the excesses of the militias and their Indonesian military sponsors grew, Djalal played a key role in seeking to deflect criticism of the militias and the military.

Djalal denied the reality that militias were arming in the run-up to the vote and sought  to obscure militia and military atrocities against civilians in East Timor. He was a dogged critic of international journalists and human right organizations who sought to report these atrocities.

In the wake of East Timor's overwhelming vote for independence, the Indonesian security forces and their militias rampaged throughout country exacting revenge for the people's rejection of Jakarta's rule. The militia and military attacks destroyed vital infrastructure and buildings. They targeted UN facilities and personnel, as well as international journalists, diplomats and other observers. Djalal was key in Jakarta's unsuccessful efforts to deny the  reality of the which cost the lives of approximately 1,500 East Timorese, displaced two-thirds of its population, and destroyed 75 percent of East Timor's infrastructure.

In diplomatic assignments in the U.S., Great Britain and Canada, Djalal focused on defending the role of the unreformed and abusive Indonesian military, including targeting of its foreign critics. More recently he has served as Presidential spokesperson.

Ambassador Djalal's past as an apologist for the worst behavior of the Indonesian military and its minions augers poorly for international efforts, especially in the United States, to press for  justice and accountability for past human rights crimes and genuine reform of Indonesia's security forces. As the situation in West Papua becomes increasingly tense, will Djalal serve as Indonesia's Washington-based apologist for continued repression?

In the interest of promoting strengthened U.S.-Indonesian relations based on respect for human rights, ETAN and WPAT believe that the U.S. government should not accept Djalal's credentials as Indonesia's Ambassador to the United States. 
http://etan.org/news/2010/09djalal.htm

Nirua receiving cheque of Vt1.8 millionas Vanuatu's contribution towards the MSG Secretariat

Prime Minister Edward Natapei decided not to discuss the West Papua issue during the recent Pacific Forum meeting because he had to get the mandate from other Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) members, particularly PNG before Vanuatu can embark further on the decolonisation issue.

The Minister of Foreign Affairs, Joe Natuman stated this when he was handing over Vanuatu’s contribution of Vt1.8 million to the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Secretariat this week.

Natuman said although Parliament has passed a motion on West Papua, it is up to the government to assist West Papua in its fight to gain independence.

He said Prime Minister Natapei has to get the mandate from the MSG partners particularly with PNG first before the country can embark on any decision.

“PNG shares a boarder with Indonesia and this makes it a serious issue.

“Which is why the Prime Minister decided not to discuss West Papua issue during the recent Pacific Forum meeting.

“If there is anything to do with decolonisation issue, the mandate has to come from the MSG before we can embark on supporting the decolonisation process,” he said.

The minister stated this during the handing over of the Vanuatu Government’s contribution to highlight the original purpose behind the setting up of the MSG.

“MSG was established for one purpose and that was to spearhead the independence of New Caledonia and push for the re-enlisting of New Caledonia on the UN decolonisation list.

“With Vanuatu and UN assistance, an agreement with France was established leading to the Noumea Accord.

“By 2014, Noumea should declare whether they want independence through a referendum,” the Foreign Affairs Minister said.

Meanwhile, Vanuatu’s contribution of Vt1.8 million was received at the MSG Secretariat by officer in charge, Jean-Pierre Nirua, who thanked the minister for Vanuatu’s contribution.

“The operation of the Secretariat depends entirely on the contribution of member countries and the Vanuatu government did the most honourable thing of paying up its contribution which will assist in the operation of the Secretariat here in the Capital,” Nirua said.

Nirua was stepping in on behalf of the MSG Director General Rima Ravusiro who was away.

In response Natuman said the delay in the MSG meeting should not be seen as an obstacle for paying up the country’s contribution.

He stressed that development partners want to see principles of good governance and rule of law being adhered to and the Secretariat must uphold these principles.
- Esther Tinning
http://www.dailypost.vu/ArticleArchives/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7425/categoryId/3/We-need-PNG-support-for-West-Papua-Natuman.aspx