Indonesia's 1969 Takeover of West Papua Not by "Free Choice"
Document Release Marks 35th Anniversary
of Controversial Vote and Annexation
Secret Files Show U.S. Support for Indonesia,
Human Rights Abuses by Indonesian Military
Edited by Brad Simpson
simpbrad@isu.edu / 208-282-3870
Posted July 9, 2004
Washington, D.C. - July 8, 2004 - "You should tell [Suharto] that we understand the problems they face in West Irian," national security adviser Henry Kissinger wrote President Nixon on the eve of Nixon's July 1969 visit to Indonesia. On the 35th anniversary of West Papua's so-called "Act of Free Choice" and Indonesia's first direct presidential elections, the National Security Archive posted recently declassified documents on U.S. policy deliberations leading to Indonesia's controversial 1969 annexation of the territory. The documents detail United States support for Indonesia's heavy-handed takeover of West Papua despite overwhelming Papuan opposition and United Nations requirements for genuine self-determination.
Background
When Indonesia gained its independence from the Netherlands in 1949, the Dutch government retained control over the territory of West New Guinea. From 1949 until 1961 the Indonesian government sought to "recover" West New Guinea (later known as West Irian or West Papua), arguing that the territory, a part of the former Netherlands East Indies, rightfully belonged with Indonesia.
In late 1961, after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to secure its goals through the United Nations, Indonesia's President Sukarno declared a military mobilization and threatened to invade West New Guinea and annex it by force. The Kennedy administration, fearing that U.S. opposition to Indonesian demands might push the country toward Communism, sponsored talks between the Netherlands and Indonesia in the spring of 1962. Negotiations took place under the shadow of ongoing Indonesian military incursions into West New Guinea and the threat of an Indonesian invasion.
The U.S.-sponsored talks led to the August 1962 New York Agreement, which awarded Indonesia control of West New Guinea (which it promptly renamed West Irian) after a brief transitional period overseen by the UN. (Note 1) The agreement obligated Jakarta to conduct an election on self-determination with UN assistance no later than 1969. Once in control, however, Indonesia quickly moved to repress political dissent by groups demanding outright independence for the territory.
U.S. officials understood at the outset that Indonesia would never allow West Irian to become independent and that it was unlikely to ever allow a meaningful act of self-determination to take place. The Johnson and Nixon administrations were equally reluctant to challenge Indonesian control over West Irian, especially after the conservative anti-Communist regime of General Suharto took over in 1966 following an abortive coup attempt which led to the slaughter of an estimated 500,000 alleged Communists. Suharto quickly moved to liberalize the Indonesian economy and open it to the West, passing a new foreign investment law in late 1967. The first company to take advantage of the law was the American mining company Freeport Sulphur, which gained concessions to vast tracts of land in West Irian containing gold and copper reserves. (Note 2)
Over six weeks from July to August 1969, U.N. officials conducted the so-called "Act of Free Choice." Under the articles of the New York Agreement (Article 18) all adult Papuans had the right to participate in an act of self-determination to be carried out in accordance with international practice. Instead, Indonesian authorities selected 1022 West Papuans to vote publicly and unanimously in favor of integration with Indonesia.
Despite significant evidence that Indonesia had failed to meet its international obligations, in November 1969 the United Nations "took note" of the "Act of Free Choice" and its results, thereby lending support of the world body to Indonesia's annexation.
Thirty-five years later, as Indonesia holds its first-ever direct Presidential elections, the international community has come to question the validity of Jakarta's takeover of West Papua and the ongoing human rights abuses there. In March, 88 members of the Irish Parliament urged United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to review the United Nations' role in the 1969 Act of Free Choice, joining South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu and scores of non-governmental organizations and European Parliamentarians. On June 28, 2004, nineteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to Annan urging the appointment of a Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor the human rights situation in West Papua and the territory of Aceh.
The Documents
The Archive's postings include a confidential February 1968 cable from U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green. Following a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik about the situation in West Irian, Green concluded that conditions in the territory are "far from satisfactory and deteriorating." A subsequent cable reported that Indonesia is "belatedly and almost desperately seeking to develop support among the peoples of West Irian" for the "Act of Free Choice."
A consular trip to West Irian in early 1968 observed that "the Indonesian government directs its main efforts" in the territory to "maintaining existing political facilities and suppressing political dissent." Because of neglect, corruption and repression at the hands of Indonesian authorities, Western observers agreed almost unanimously that "Indonesia could not win an open election" and that the vast majority of West Irian's inhabitants favored independence.
In July of 1968 the UN-appointed Ambassador Fernando Ortiz Sanz arrived in Jakarta as the Secretary General's Special Representative for assisting Indonesia with the West Irian plebiscite, as called for by the 1962 New York Agreement.
A confidential cable from the U.S. Embassy to the State Department outlined the stakes in the upcoming "Act of Free Choice." While cautioning that the U.S. government "should not become directly involved in this issue," Ambassador Green worried that Ortiz Sanz or other UN members might "hold out for free and direct elections" in West Irian, frustrating Indonesia's intention to retain the territory at all costs. Consequently, U.S. and other Western officials worried about the need to meet with Ortiz Sanz to "make him aware of political realities." In a confidential October 1968 Airgram the U.S. Embassy reported with relief that Ortiz now "concedes that it would be inconceivable from the point of view of the interest of the U.N., as well as the GOI, that a result other than the continuance of West Irian within Indonesian sovereignty should emerge."
The Indonesian government firmly rejected the possibility of a one-person, one-vote plebiscite in West Irian, insisting instead on a series of local 'consultations' with just over 1,000 hand selected tribal leaders (out of an estimated population of 800,000), conducted in July 1969 with between 6,000-10,000 Indonesian troops spread throughout the territory. As the U.S. Embassy put it in a July 1969 telegram:
The Act of Free Choice (AFC) in West Irian is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion preordained. The main protagonist, the GOI, cannot and will not permit any resolution other than the continued inclusion of West Irian in Indonesia. Dissident activity is likely to increase but the Indonesian armed forces will be able to contain and, if necessary, suppress it.
Ambassador Frank Galbraith noted on July 9, 1969 that past abuses had stimulated intense anti-Indonesian and pro-independence sentiment at all levels of Irian society, suggesting that "possibly 85 to 90%" of the population "are in sympathy with the Free Papua cause." Moreover, Galbraith observed, recent Indonesian military operations, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of civilians, "had stimulated fears and rumours of intended genocide among the Irianese."
President Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited Jakarta in July 1969 while the "Act of Free Choice" was underway. Improving relations with Indonesia's authoritarian regime was clearly uppermost in the mind of Kissinger, who characterized Suharto as a "moderate military man … committed to progress and reform." In Nixon's secret briefing papers (Document 9 and Document 10) for the visit Kissinger flatly told the President "you should not raise this issue" of West Irian and argued "we should avoid any U.S. identification with that act." The White House generally held to this position throughout the period preceding and following the "Act of Free Choice."
Although they recognized the deep flaws in the Act and in Indonesia's intentions, U.S. officials were not interested in creating any problems for a Suharto regime they saw as nonaligned but pro-Washington. While the U.S. was unwilling to actively intervene on Indonesia's behalf (an action they thought unnecessary and counterproductive) at the UN to insure quick General Assembly acceptance of Indonesia's formal takeover of West Papua, the U.S. quietly signaled that it was uninterested in a lengthy debate over an issue it viewed as a foregone conclusion and marginal to U.S. interests. In a secret briefing memo for a meeting with Indonesia's Ambassador to the United States Soedjakmoto, a State Department official expressed confidence that international criticism of the "Act of Free Choice" would quickly fade, allowing the Nixon Administration to move forward with its plans for forging closer military and economic ties with the authoritarian regime in Jakarta.
Documents
NOTE: The documents featured below were selected for inclusion in this Electronic Briefing Book. Click here to download the complete set of documents on this issue (PDF - 7.6 MB).
Document 1
February 29, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
The U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Marshall Green reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik on West Irian. Malik suggests the possibility of reducing the more than 10,000 Indonesian troops serving in Irian. He also hints Indonesia will insist on indirect means for ascertaining the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory in 1969, perhaps relying on tribal leaders who can be induced with "favors for them and their tribes." Green expresses concern about the "deteriorating" situation.
Document 2
May 2, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green, reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik in which Malik outlines some of the measures Jakarta is undertaking in an attempt to build support among the people of West Irian for merger with Indonesia.
Document 3
May 10, 1968
Subject: Consular Trip to West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
In January, 1968 Embassy Political Consul Thomas Reynders visits West Irian for one month. Reynders observes the relatively low level of economic development in the territory since Indonesia assumed control in 1962, noting that "The Indonesian government's presence in West Irian is expressed primarily in the form of the Army." Reynders concludes, as have nearly all Western observers, that "Indonesia will not accept Independence for West Irian and will not permit a plebiscite that would reach such an outcome" and notes the "antipathy or outright hatred believed to be harbored toward Indonesia and Indonesians by West Irians in the relatively developed and sophisticated areas."
Document 4
August 20, 1968
Subject: The Stakes in West Irian's "Act of Free Choice"
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
US Ambassador Marshall Green suggests "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian "May well be the most important political issue in Indonesia during the coming year." Notes Indonesian "dilemma" in seeking "to devise some meaningful way to conduct ascertainment which will not involve real risks of loss of West Irian." Green reminds the State Department, in urging a hands-off approach by the U.S., that "we are dealing here essentially with stone age, illiterate tribal groups" and that "free elections among groups such as this would be more of a farce than any rigged mechanism Indonesia could devise."
Document 5
August 4, 1968
Subject: "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
Marshall Green writes to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific G. McMurtry Godley expressing concern over the views of U.N. Special Representative for West Irian Ortiz Sanz. Green recommends that "in view of high stakes … we should do anything we can indirectly to make him aware of political realities" regarding Indonesian intentions toward West Irian.
Document 6
October 4, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Embassy Political Consul Jack Lydman describes the results of Ortiz Sanz's recent orientation visit to West Irian and asserts that Sanz is now "attempting to devise a formula for an "act of free choice" in West Irian which will result in an affirmation of Indonesian sovereignty" yet "stand the test of international opinion."
Document 7
June 9, 1969
Subject: Assessment of Irian situation
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
On the eve of the "Act of Free Choice," the U.S. embassy offers a highly critical appraisal of Indonesia's determination to insure West Irian's integration, concluding that from Jakarta's standpoint "separation is unthinkable." After detailing Indonesian efforts to repress "increasingly desperate" supporters of independence for West Irian, Embassy concludes with concern for "future Indonesian relations with Irianese," many of whom display a "festering antagonism and distrust of Indonesians."
Document 8
June 9, 1969
Subject: West Irian: The Nature of the Opposition
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Galbraith offers a detailed assessment of the views of various Irian groups opposed to integration with Indonesia and advocating independence, including the Free Papua Movement (OPM). He observes that "opposition to the GOI stems from economic deprivation over the years, military repression and capriciousness, and maladministration," and suggests that anti-Indonesian groups will be unable to alter the final outcome of the "Act of Free Choice."
Documents 9 and 10
June 10 and July 18, 1969
Subject: Djakarta Visit: Your Meetings with President Suharto
Henry Kissinger, Memorandum for the President
National security adviser Henry Kissinger briefs President Nixon on his visit to Indonesia and likely conversations with Indonesian President Suharto. Kissinger argues that there is no U.S. interest in getting involved in the issue of West Irian and that it is certain its people will choose integration with Indonesia. In Nixon's talking points, Kissinger urges that the President refrain from raising the issue except to note U.S. sympathy with Indonesia's concerns.
Document 11
August 25, 1969
Subject: Call by Indonesian Ambassador Soedjakmoto
U.S. State Department, Secret Memorandum
Paul Gardner briefs Assistant Secretary of State Marshall Green on his visit with Indonesian Ambassador to the U.S. Soedjakmoto, who is expected to ask for help from the U.S. in "preparing smooth U.N. handling" of the "Act of Free Choice" in the General Assembly.
Notes
1. For an excellent overview of the events leading up to the New York Agreement, see Jones, Matthew. Conflict and Confrontation in Southeast Asia, 1961-1965: Britain, the United States, Indonesia and the Creation of Malaysia (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 2002): 31-62; C.L.M. Penders. The West New Guinea Debacle: Dutch Colonization and Indonesia, 1945-1962 (Hawaii, 2002); John Saltford. The United Nations and the Indonesian Takeover of West Papua, 1962-1969 (Routledge, 2003).
2. Denise Leith. The Politics of Power: Freeport in Suharto's Indonesia (Hawaii, 2003).
of Controversial Vote and Annexation
Secret Files Show U.S. Support for Indonesia,
Human Rights Abuses by Indonesian Military
Edited by Brad Simpson
simpbrad@isu.edu / 208-282-3870
Posted July 9, 2004
Washington, D.C. - July 8, 2004 - "You should tell [Suharto] that we understand the problems they face in West Irian," national security adviser Henry Kissinger wrote President Nixon on the eve of Nixon's July 1969 visit to Indonesia. On the 35th anniversary of West Papua's so-called "Act of Free Choice" and Indonesia's first direct presidential elections, the National Security Archive posted recently declassified documents on U.S. policy deliberations leading to Indonesia's controversial 1969 annexation of the territory. The documents detail United States support for Indonesia's heavy-handed takeover of West Papua despite overwhelming Papuan opposition and United Nations requirements for genuine self-determination.
Background
When Indonesia gained its independence from the Netherlands in 1949, the Dutch government retained control over the territory of West New Guinea. From 1949 until 1961 the Indonesian government sought to "recover" West New Guinea (later known as West Irian or West Papua), arguing that the territory, a part of the former Netherlands East Indies, rightfully belonged with Indonesia.
In late 1961, after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to secure its goals through the United Nations, Indonesia's President Sukarno declared a military mobilization and threatened to invade West New Guinea and annex it by force. The Kennedy administration, fearing that U.S. opposition to Indonesian demands might push the country toward Communism, sponsored talks between the Netherlands and Indonesia in the spring of 1962. Negotiations took place under the shadow of ongoing Indonesian military incursions into West New Guinea and the threat of an Indonesian invasion.
The U.S.-sponsored talks led to the August 1962 New York Agreement, which awarded Indonesia control of West New Guinea (which it promptly renamed West Irian) after a brief transitional period overseen by the UN. (Note 1) The agreement obligated Jakarta to conduct an election on self-determination with UN assistance no later than 1969. Once in control, however, Indonesia quickly moved to repress political dissent by groups demanding outright independence for the territory.
U.S. officials understood at the outset that Indonesia would never allow West Irian to become independent and that it was unlikely to ever allow a meaningful act of self-determination to take place. The Johnson and Nixon administrations were equally reluctant to challenge Indonesian control over West Irian, especially after the conservative anti-Communist regime of General Suharto took over in 1966 following an abortive coup attempt which led to the slaughter of an estimated 500,000 alleged Communists. Suharto quickly moved to liberalize the Indonesian economy and open it to the West, passing a new foreign investment law in late 1967. The first company to take advantage of the law was the American mining company Freeport Sulphur, which gained concessions to vast tracts of land in West Irian containing gold and copper reserves. (Note 2)
Over six weeks from July to August 1969, U.N. officials conducted the so-called "Act of Free Choice." Under the articles of the New York Agreement (Article 18) all adult Papuans had the right to participate in an act of self-determination to be carried out in accordance with international practice. Instead, Indonesian authorities selected 1022 West Papuans to vote publicly and unanimously in favor of integration with Indonesia.
Despite significant evidence that Indonesia had failed to meet its international obligations, in November 1969 the United Nations "took note" of the "Act of Free Choice" and its results, thereby lending support of the world body to Indonesia's annexation.
Thirty-five years later, as Indonesia holds its first-ever direct Presidential elections, the international community has come to question the validity of Jakarta's takeover of West Papua and the ongoing human rights abuses there. In March, 88 members of the Irish Parliament urged United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to review the United Nations' role in the 1969 Act of Free Choice, joining South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu and scores of non-governmental organizations and European Parliamentarians. On June 28, 2004, nineteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to Annan urging the appointment of a Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor the human rights situation in West Papua and the territory of Aceh.
The Documents
The Archive's postings include a confidential February 1968 cable from U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green. Following a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik about the situation in West Irian, Green concluded that conditions in the territory are "far from satisfactory and deteriorating." A subsequent cable reported that Indonesia is "belatedly and almost desperately seeking to develop support among the peoples of West Irian" for the "Act of Free Choice."
A consular trip to West Irian in early 1968 observed that "the Indonesian government directs its main efforts" in the territory to "maintaining existing political facilities and suppressing political dissent." Because of neglect, corruption and repression at the hands of Indonesian authorities, Western observers agreed almost unanimously that "Indonesia could not win an open election" and that the vast majority of West Irian's inhabitants favored independence.
In July of 1968 the UN-appointed Ambassador Fernando Ortiz Sanz arrived in Jakarta as the Secretary General's Special Representative for assisting Indonesia with the West Irian plebiscite, as called for by the 1962 New York Agreement.
A confidential cable from the U.S. Embassy to the State Department outlined the stakes in the upcoming "Act of Free Choice." While cautioning that the U.S. government "should not become directly involved in this issue," Ambassador Green worried that Ortiz Sanz or other UN members might "hold out for free and direct elections" in West Irian, frustrating Indonesia's intention to retain the territory at all costs. Consequently, U.S. and other Western officials worried about the need to meet with Ortiz Sanz to "make him aware of political realities." In a confidential October 1968 Airgram the U.S. Embassy reported with relief that Ortiz now "concedes that it would be inconceivable from the point of view of the interest of the U.N., as well as the GOI, that a result other than the continuance of West Irian within Indonesian sovereignty should emerge."
The Indonesian government firmly rejected the possibility of a one-person, one-vote plebiscite in West Irian, insisting instead on a series of local 'consultations' with just over 1,000 hand selected tribal leaders (out of an estimated population of 800,000), conducted in July 1969 with between 6,000-10,000 Indonesian troops spread throughout the territory. As the U.S. Embassy put it in a July 1969 telegram:
The Act of Free Choice (AFC) in West Irian is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion preordained. The main protagonist, the GOI, cannot and will not permit any resolution other than the continued inclusion of West Irian in Indonesia. Dissident activity is likely to increase but the Indonesian armed forces will be able to contain and, if necessary, suppress it.
Ambassador Frank Galbraith noted on July 9, 1969 that past abuses had stimulated intense anti-Indonesian and pro-independence sentiment at all levels of Irian society, suggesting that "possibly 85 to 90%" of the population "are in sympathy with the Free Papua cause." Moreover, Galbraith observed, recent Indonesian military operations, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of civilians, "had stimulated fears and rumours of intended genocide among the Irianese."
President Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited Jakarta in July 1969 while the "Act of Free Choice" was underway. Improving relations with Indonesia's authoritarian regime was clearly uppermost in the mind of Kissinger, who characterized Suharto as a "moderate military man … committed to progress and reform." In Nixon's secret briefing papers (Document 9 and Document 10) for the visit Kissinger flatly told the President "you should not raise this issue" of West Irian and argued "we should avoid any U.S. identification with that act." The White House generally held to this position throughout the period preceding and following the "Act of Free Choice."
Although they recognized the deep flaws in the Act and in Indonesia's intentions, U.S. officials were not interested in creating any problems for a Suharto regime they saw as nonaligned but pro-Washington. While the U.S. was unwilling to actively intervene on Indonesia's behalf (an action they thought unnecessary and counterproductive) at the UN to insure quick General Assembly acceptance of Indonesia's formal takeover of West Papua, the U.S. quietly signaled that it was uninterested in a lengthy debate over an issue it viewed as a foregone conclusion and marginal to U.S. interests. In a secret briefing memo for a meeting with Indonesia's Ambassador to the United States Soedjakmoto, a State Department official expressed confidence that international criticism of the "Act of Free Choice" would quickly fade, allowing the Nixon Administration to move forward with its plans for forging closer military and economic ties with the authoritarian regime in Jakarta.
Documents
NOTE: The documents featured below were selected for inclusion in this Electronic Briefing Book. Click here to download the complete set of documents on this issue (PDF - 7.6 MB).
Document 1
February 29, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
The U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Marshall Green reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik on West Irian. Malik suggests the possibility of reducing the more than 10,000 Indonesian troops serving in Irian. He also hints Indonesia will insist on indirect means for ascertaining the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory in 1969, perhaps relying on tribal leaders who can be induced with "favors for them and their tribes." Green expresses concern about the "deteriorating" situation.
Document 2
May 2, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green, reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik in which Malik outlines some of the measures Jakarta is undertaking in an attempt to build support among the people of West Irian for merger with Indonesia.
Document 3
May 10, 1968
Subject: Consular Trip to West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
In January, 1968 Embassy Political Consul Thomas Reynders visits West Irian for one month. Reynders observes the relatively low level of economic development in the territory since Indonesia assumed control in 1962, noting that "The Indonesian government's presence in West Irian is expressed primarily in the form of the Army." Reynders concludes, as have nearly all Western observers, that "Indonesia will not accept Independence for West Irian and will not permit a plebiscite that would reach such an outcome" and notes the "antipathy or outright hatred believed to be harbored toward Indonesia and Indonesians by West Irians in the relatively developed and sophisticated areas."
Document 4
August 20, 1968
Subject: The Stakes in West Irian's "Act of Free Choice"
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
US Ambassador Marshall Green suggests "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian "May well be the most important political issue in Indonesia during the coming year." Notes Indonesian "dilemma" in seeking "to devise some meaningful way to conduct ascertainment which will not involve real risks of loss of West Irian." Green reminds the State Department, in urging a hands-off approach by the U.S., that "we are dealing here essentially with stone age, illiterate tribal groups" and that "free elections among groups such as this would be more of a farce than any rigged mechanism Indonesia could devise."
Document 5
August 4, 1968
Subject: "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
Marshall Green writes to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific G. McMurtry Godley expressing concern over the views of U.N. Special Representative for West Irian Ortiz Sanz. Green recommends that "in view of high stakes … we should do anything we can indirectly to make him aware of political realities" regarding Indonesian intentions toward West Irian.
Document 6
October 4, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Embassy Political Consul Jack Lydman describes the results of Ortiz Sanz's recent orientation visit to West Irian and asserts that Sanz is now "attempting to devise a formula for an "act of free choice" in West Irian which will result in an affirmation of Indonesian sovereignty" yet "stand the test of international opinion."
Document 7
June 9, 1969
Subject: Assessment of Irian situation
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
On the eve of the "Act of Free Choice," the U.S. embassy offers a highly critical appraisal of Indonesia's determination to insure West Irian's integration, concluding that from Jakarta's standpoint "separation is unthinkable." After detailing Indonesian efforts to repress "increasingly desperate" supporters of independence for West Irian, Embassy concludes with concern for "future Indonesian relations with Irianese," many of whom display a "festering antagonism and distrust of Indonesians."
Document 8
June 9, 1969
Subject: West Irian: The Nature of the Opposition
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Galbraith offers a detailed assessment of the views of various Irian groups opposed to integration with Indonesia and advocating independence, including the Free Papua Movement (OPM). He observes that "opposition to the GOI stems from economic deprivation over the years, military repression and capriciousness, and maladministration," and suggests that anti-Indonesian groups will be unable to alter the final outcome of the "Act of Free Choice."
Documents 9 and 10
June 10 and July 18, 1969
Subject: Djakarta Visit: Your Meetings with President Suharto
Henry Kissinger, Memorandum for the President
National security adviser Henry Kissinger briefs President Nixon on his visit to Indonesia and likely conversations with Indonesian President Suharto. Kissinger argues that there is no U.S. interest in getting involved in the issue of West Irian and that it is certain its people will choose integration with Indonesia. In Nixon's talking points, Kissinger urges that the President refrain from raising the issue except to note U.S. sympathy with Indonesia's concerns.
Document 11
August 25, 1969
Subject: Call by Indonesian Ambassador Soedjakmoto
U.S. State Department, Secret Memorandum
Paul Gardner briefs Assistant Secretary of State Marshall Green on his visit with Indonesian Ambassador to the U.S. Soedjakmoto, who is expected to ask for help from the U.S. in "preparing smooth U.N. handling" of the "Act of Free Choice" in the General Assembly.
Notes
1. For an excellent overview of the events leading up to the New York Agreement, see Jones, Matthew. Conflict and Confrontation in Southeast Asia, 1961-1965: Britain, the United States, Indonesia and the Creation of Malaysia (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 2002): 31-62; C.L.M. Penders. The West New Guinea Debacle: Dutch Colonization and Indonesia, 1945-1962 (Hawaii, 2002); John Saltford. The United Nations and the Indonesian Takeover of West Papua, 1962-1969 (Routledge, 2003).
2. Denise Leith. The Politics of Power: Freeport in Suharto's Indonesia (Hawaii, 2003).
Tags:
Media Barat Utk Papua
Parliamant UK : West Papua by
West Papua
8.27 pm
Lord Harries of Pentregarth rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to further the independence of West Papua.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for allowing time for this short debate and, in particular, to the speakers who put their names down. We all feel some sympathy and admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has had to battle in such an indomitable way for so many hours already, and must now face a fresh subject.
West Papua may seem far away and its problems small compared with the very grave situation in the Middle East. To its people those problems are immediate and painful, and the principles at stake are fundamental to civilised life in the modern world. The issue at the heart of this question, as in the conflict in West Papua itself, is whether a people have the right to self-determination and, if so, how we ensure that they can freely choose to exercise that right. The West Papuans are a people—the same people as those of Papua New Guinea on the east of the island— who obtained their independence from Britain over 30 years ago. They have no desire to be ruled from Jakarta. As a Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing in 1969, now publicly available, put it:
8 Jan 2007 : Column 91
“Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian (West Papua) have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are of an alien (Javanese) race”.
It went on to say that,
“the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made”.
That is putting it very mildly. The so-called Act of Free Choice consisted of 1,026 people being forced at gunpoint to vote for integration with Suharto’s Indonesia, and this being taken as the voice of the people.
That this is the case is now publicly recognised by the British Government. In a historic statement to this House in answer to a Starred Question in my name, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who was then the Minister, acknowledged that,
“there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; col. 1084.]
The question now is: what can be done to rectify this historical wrong and what is the next step? In particular, what steps are the Government taking? The policy of the Indonesian Government is to divide the country into three provinces, two of which have come into being with, in theory, a limited degree of local autonomy in each one. It has to be said plainly that this policy is not working and will not work. It is leading to increasing unrest, human rights abuses and the build-up of military forces in each of the three areas. I am afraid that it is the age-old policy of divide and rule—a policy that has a particular economic dimension in West Papua, when one province has the liquid gas. It will not satisfy the West Papuan people who wish for self-determination as a people, not rule from Java through a well-funded elite and a strong military presence. Where do we go from here? I have three questions for the Government. I leave the important question of arms sales, particularly arms that can be used for internal repression, to others.
First, will the Government take the lead in bringing this issue to the United Nations? I do not underestimate the difficulties. A number of powerful countries have strong economic ties to Indonesia, not least in the arms trade, and will be only too anxious not to make a fuss about this matter, as they were anxious not to make a fuss about it at the time of the so-called “Act of Free Choice” in 1969. We are, of course, one of those countries. But this Government, through the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, had the honesty to admit that what happened in 1969 was a total travesty. The Government can only enhance their reputation by carrying this issue forwards with—and these are the key words—a steady and consistent policy.
The public recognition in this House in December 2004 was only a first step. To mean anything, it must be pursued. In particular, will the Government make a public commitment to support a UN-sponsored rerun of the flawed in 1969 “Act of Free Choice”, this time as a genuine, one-person-one-vote referendum, internationally monitored and giving the tribal peoples of West Papua the chance to choose freely between independence, free association or continued integration with Indonesia.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 92
Secondly, will the Government make more specific representations about the human rights abuses taking place, documented by Amnesty International? It has been estimated that, since 1969, more than 100,000 West Papuans have been killed and there are now some 9,000 refugees in Papua New Guinea. The Catholic Church's Papuan Peace and Justice Secretariat reported in June last year that students who had been arrested after a peaceful demonstration and been interviewed by their investigators had been denied access to legal representation and had suffered physical and mental torture. At present, there are more than 100 political prisoners in West Papua of whom I mention only two this evening, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, who were jailed for 15 and 10 years respectively for raising the West Papuan national flag—the morning star—on 1 December 2004, and who have been recognised by Amnesty International as political prisoners. The date of 1 December is significant because that was the day in 1961 that the Dutch granted West Papua independence, an independence which was quickly and sadly lost when Indonesia invaded the island in 1962, claiming it for themselves.
I understand that the Government are generally monitoring the situation of political prisoners through their embassy in Jakarta, but will they specifically raise the issue of these two prisoners of conscience, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, with the Indonesian Government and make it clear to them that not only must they be treated humanely, but that the basis of their charge and imprisonment is totally unacceptable in any society that claims to be democratic?
Then, thirdly, arising from this there is the whole question of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to form political parties, freedom of access for journalists and NGOs and the importance of achieving a genuine dialogue between the Indonesian Government and the people in West Papua who wish to raise the issue of self-determination.
At the moment the Indonesian Government lay down a pre-condition that this subject cannot even be raised in discussions. Yet that is the issue at the heart of this conflict. The West Papuans are a peace-loving people and they want to talk about what matters to them. At the moment, this is prevented by the heavy military presence and the refusal of the Indonesian authorities even to allow certain questions to be raised. Linked to this is their refusal to allow access to outsiders who raise these questions. In May of last year the UNHCR’s regional representative said in evidence to an Australian Senate inquiry,
“I can confirm that, despite repeated requests, the UNHCR has not been given permission by the Government in Jakarta to have access to West Papua”.
Other aid agencies and nearly all foreign journalists, as well as Amnesty International’s fact-finding mission, have also been refused permission to visit.
After its historic recognition in December 2004, I hope that the Government will pursue this matter with a steady and consistent policy in three ways: first, with a view to achieving a genuinely free vote about self-determination; secondly, by raising the
8 Jan 2007 : Column 93
matter of serious human rights’ abuses, particularly in relation to Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage; and, thirdly, by urging the basic freedoms of speech, assembly and access, which are absolutely fundamental to any country that regards itself as democratic.
8.36 pm
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to our attention. He has long championed the human rights of the people of West Papua, keeping their plight before the House and the British public for a number of years. He is to be thanked for doing so again this evening, and the least that we can do for him in this short debate is to press my noble friend the Minister to inject some urgency into efforts to address the flagrant denial of justice to the people of West Papua. The noble Lord has put forward an admirable programme and some practical suggestions. If every speaker simply does that, it might give the weight of the whole House this evening to some practical outcomes.
As the noble Lord said, when my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean admitted in an answer to a previous debate that the 1969 Act of Free Choice was a flawed exercise, she went on to ask a simple question: “What should happen now?”. She gave the beginnings of an answer to her own question by suggesting that, as 35 years had passed since the flawed referendum of 1969, it would be better to look to new proposals then being put forward than to continue to harp on about ancient events. Special autonomy legislation only recently passed by the Indonesian Government would, she said, grant,
“70 per cent of oil and gas royalties originating in Papua—as well as 80 per cent of forestry, fishery and mining royalties—to the people of Papua”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; cols. 1084-85.]
A truth and reconciliation committee had been set up to look into a number of the offences that people were complaining about. It would be best, said the noble Baroness, to see how the measures were embedding before we mapped a way forward.
What she did not say was that, between 1969 and 2004, the same 35 years that were considered to have consigned the referendum to ancient history, there had been a massive transmigration programme that brought 1.2 million people into West Papua of Javanese and Sumatran origin, nearly all of them Muslims. That changed the nature of Papuan society and culture radically. The Indonesian Government implemented the same policies at roughly the same time in East Timor and with the same objective—to change the nature and allegiances of a people who were being obstreperous and seeking their rights of self-determination. Incidentally, in Eritrea, Ethiopia attempted the same business of changing the nature of the population to achieve its ultimate goals.
The benefits of the new legislation—the special autonomy legislation—would accrue not to a Papuan population at all but to one so radically different that fewer than 50 per cent of the population were the original indigenous Papuans in the first place. The
8 Jan 2007 : Column 94
noble Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned the large number—more than 100,000 at the lowest estimates—of people of Papuan origin who had been killed in the same period.
We have seen in the way in which Eritrea was abandoned by its United Nations overseers in the post-war period to the whims of Ethiopia a similar case of injustice. It was a United Nations set-up body that in New York allowed Indonesia to annex West Papua to itself. The Eritrean People’s Liberation Army fought a long war of attrition to attain its rightful status, and I was present on the day of the referendum in 1993 when, with great jubilation, at last the Eritrean people felt that they had gained their objective despite the opposition of the international community; so, too, the Free Papua Movement may be counted on to maintain its opposition to the present arrangements and to seek the support of the world community in achieving its legitimate objectives.
The 1969 Act of Free Choice was both cynical and wrong. It involved about 1,000 hand-picked people; a significant number of them were tribal leaders who were rounded up a month before the referendum and indoctrinated so that they would vote as they were obliged to, at gunpoint, on the day of the referendum. The voting exercise was overseen by, of all people, the Indonesian army, mainly. There were a couple of objective overseas observers, but they left before the vote was completed. All responsible commentators agree with that analysis. No amount of truth and reconciliation will hide or play down that basic fact.
Indonesia has been seen by all the major players in the West as an important bastion against communism. The United States has played a significant part in seeing the outcomes that we are discussing this evening come to pass, but our own country is associated with it and so is Australia. Even the Vatican, because of the significant number of powerful Roman Catholics in the Indonesian republic, has preferred to turn a blind eye to some of these questions on the margin of its consideration.
In view of that, we must ask ourselves how we implement an ethical foreign policy towards this small region. The question will not go away; it did not do so in Eritrea or East Timor, nor will it in West Papua. I hope that my noble friend will help her colleagues in government to show a preferential option to those suffering injustice, as this is a case clamouring for appropriate attention.
8.43 pm
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, together with my noble friend Lord Griffiths, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harries on again drawing attention to a subject that for too long has represented a dereliction of responsibility by the international community. Any unlawful usurpation should evoke condemnation if international law is not to be brought into disrepute, but here there has been persecution, murder, evictions and burning of the villages of innocent human beings, while the world has looked on. Surely that will reflect opprobrium on our generation from those who come after us.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 95
We could debate at length the precise criteria for the right of a people to self-determination. Those debates go back to the League of Nations, but today we are spared legal hair splitting. Here, there is a population of 800,000 people, racially differentiated from the population of Indonesia, with its own history, culture, and inhabiting a clearly defined territory, yet ruled by an alien administration which by a persistent policy of repression and terror has made itself hated and feared.
We have every criterion for the right to self-determination. The principle is declared in Article 1.2 of the United Nations charter and further enshrined in the two human rights covenants of 1966. There is clear consensus that two principles follow. First, the right includes the right of a people to decide how to exercise its choice. It is for the people to decide who their delegates are to be and what the decision-making process is to be. They are entitled to do that free from any pressures, internal or external, after such free discussions as their choice may require. Secondly, the right is continuing and not exhausted once it has been exercised, validly or otherwise. A right to choose entails a right to make continuing choices as circumstances change or simply if there is a change of mind. A third principle, while we are passing, is that the right includes a right to enjoy the natural resources of the area and to decide how they are to be developed and exploited. Article 1.2 of the international economic covenant reads:
“All peoples may, for their own end, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources”,
subject, of course, to existing obligations.
The situation has a shamefully long drawn-out history of which the international community has no reason to be proud. In 1949, the Netherlands Government conceded independence to Indonesia, but vast areas had been included in the territory purely for the purposes of administration and not by any stretch of the imagination because they were a natural part of Indonesia. The Indonesian Government said that the newly acquired statehood should extend throughout that territory. The Netherlands Government said that the peoples of West Irian were entitled to decide whether they should be included in the new state or whether they should have some other status.
Up to that point, the Papuan people had not been invited to participate in the discussions. The Netherlands said that the issue should be decided by the United Nations. Indonesia said that it was an internal matter, not the concern of the international community, and that it should be resolved by negotiations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, which clearly would never eventuate in an agreement. Nevertheless, the General Assembly discussed the question in 1954 and again in 1961 but was unable to agree on a resolution. It is worth pointing out that in those debates West Papua had no representation—it had no seat in the General Assembly.
On 31 December 1961, West Papua achieved a very short-lived independence. The Indonesian Government terminated it unilaterally by military
8 Jan 2007 : Column 96
force. In 1962, Indonesia and the Netherlands reached the New York agreement, which was designed to resolve the issue. The Netherlands would transfer administration of West Papua to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority established by and answerable to the Secretary-General. It was said that arrangements would be put in place for the people of West Irian to choose in accordance with international practice and with the participation of all adults, male and female. That agreement was approved by the General Assembly, so it was accepted by all concerned that the population of West Papua was a separate and identifiable people entitled to self-determination. I hope that, in replying, my noble friend will clarify whether the Government accept that conclusion or, if not, why not.
The outcome of such a choice was predictable. We now know that John Kennedy’s ambassador reported 85 to 90 per cent of the population as being in sympathy with the Free Papua Movement. That outcome would have left Indonesia, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths said, blaming the West. The United States was concerned that if Indonesia turned to the communist bloc there would be an outpost of communism in east Asia. The Temporary Executive Authority proved to be very temporary. It was persuaded by the United States to acquiesce in the assumption of control by the Indonesian Government. That was fatal to any hope of a fair entitlement. It led to the infamous Act of Free Choice about which both noble Lords have already spoken, and I will not repeat that. It has been condemned by international lawyers and by other authorities again and again.
There the situation rests. The Indonesian Government introduced the special autonomy law in 2001, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out, but there has been no autonomy, and the atrocities go on. As all too often, the persecution, the murders and the incarcerations will continue for as long as the protest continues, and that will continue as long as the situation remains as it is. Any form of international action can take place only if it is initiated by a national Government. The United Kingdom Government still carry respect and influence in these matters. The question is whether they retain their dedication to an ethical foreign policy. I am sure that I know the answer that my noble friend would like to give; many of us are looking forward to hearing the answer that she is authorised to give.
8.51 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on introducing this important debate tonight. There were many reasons for wanting to intervene; perhaps the whole issue of human rights, to which the noble Lord referred, would be sufficient in itself. We have a Government who claim that they want to see a world based on human rights, accountable government and democracy. They want to play a full part in working towards that world. It logically follows, therefore, that we have an interest in the injustice of the situation in West Papua.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 97
I am afraid that I see in the situation too many sinister and ominous parallels with East Timor. I have visited Indonesia on a number of occasions, and I visited East Timor in the final stage, just before the terrible conflict that led to independence. The people of that part of the world are wonderful; they deserve more than they are enjoying.
Sometimes in debates of this kind we become a bit theoretical and remote in our analysis, and I therefore am not ashamed to bring to the attention of the House a letter that was brought to my attention fairly recently. It is an open letter written by Benny Wenda, the chairman of the Koteka Tribal Assembly and the leader of the West Papua Independence Movement, to the Indonesian ambassador in Britain, who had apparently expressed surprise that West Papua was seeking independence. This letter, written with some passion, was to tell him why. In the letter, Benny Wenda referred first to what we have already heard about the invasion of their land. He then referred to the referendum that was offered as a so-called act of free choice, which in fact was in the context of the ruthless intimidation of those who were likely to vote for independence. Then there was the removal of people to make way for the exploitation of gold, copper, oil and timber reserves. Again, ruthless techniques were employed, such as bombing from helicopters. People were rendered homeless, raped and murdered; all this was part of what happened.
Perhaps I can quote directly from the letter, which is passionate and written with real feeling:
“Then you started to rip open and destroy our Land. We call our Land our Mother because she gives us everything we need to live. You sold our Mother to British, American & Australian companies like Rio Tinto & BP. You got rich whilst we West Papuans got poorer, not because we want your kind of riches, but because without our Mother we die”.
He concluded:
“Now you say that we are ‘free and equal citizens of the new Indonesian democracy’. But when we tell you we want to use this ‘new free democracy’ to campaign democratically and peacefully for independence and when we just want to see our own flag flying in our own Sky, you cover our Land with soldiers, you put us in prison, you torture us and you kill us”.
I have no first-hand experience by which I can assess these accusations, but I have the experience of visits to Indonesia and to East Timor and I am afraid that the accusations ring all too true to me.
Obviously, it is not convincing to contemplate a world in which every ethnic group has a national identity of its own. That would make neither political nor economic sense. But consent is essential if countries are to stand together in meaningful democracy and freedom, and consent depends on trust. Where trust is absent—and it seems to be totally absent in this case—consent can hardly be expected. The genie is out of the bottle.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70108-0013.htm#07010827000002
8.27 pm
Lord Harries of Pentregarth rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to further the independence of West Papua.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for allowing time for this short debate and, in particular, to the speakers who put their names down. We all feel some sympathy and admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has had to battle in such an indomitable way for so many hours already, and must now face a fresh subject.
West Papua may seem far away and its problems small compared with the very grave situation in the Middle East. To its people those problems are immediate and painful, and the principles at stake are fundamental to civilised life in the modern world. The issue at the heart of this question, as in the conflict in West Papua itself, is whether a people have the right to self-determination and, if so, how we ensure that they can freely choose to exercise that right. The West Papuans are a people—the same people as those of Papua New Guinea on the east of the island— who obtained their independence from Britain over 30 years ago. They have no desire to be ruled from Jakarta. As a Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing in 1969, now publicly available, put it:
8 Jan 2007 : Column 91
“Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian (West Papua) have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are of an alien (Javanese) race”.
It went on to say that,
“the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made”.
That is putting it very mildly. The so-called Act of Free Choice consisted of 1,026 people being forced at gunpoint to vote for integration with Suharto’s Indonesia, and this being taken as the voice of the people.
That this is the case is now publicly recognised by the British Government. In a historic statement to this House in answer to a Starred Question in my name, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who was then the Minister, acknowledged that,
“there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; col. 1084.]
The question now is: what can be done to rectify this historical wrong and what is the next step? In particular, what steps are the Government taking? The policy of the Indonesian Government is to divide the country into three provinces, two of which have come into being with, in theory, a limited degree of local autonomy in each one. It has to be said plainly that this policy is not working and will not work. It is leading to increasing unrest, human rights abuses and the build-up of military forces in each of the three areas. I am afraid that it is the age-old policy of divide and rule—a policy that has a particular economic dimension in West Papua, when one province has the liquid gas. It will not satisfy the West Papuan people who wish for self-determination as a people, not rule from Java through a well-funded elite and a strong military presence. Where do we go from here? I have three questions for the Government. I leave the important question of arms sales, particularly arms that can be used for internal repression, to others.
First, will the Government take the lead in bringing this issue to the United Nations? I do not underestimate the difficulties. A number of powerful countries have strong economic ties to Indonesia, not least in the arms trade, and will be only too anxious not to make a fuss about this matter, as they were anxious not to make a fuss about it at the time of the so-called “Act of Free Choice” in 1969. We are, of course, one of those countries. But this Government, through the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, had the honesty to admit that what happened in 1969 was a total travesty. The Government can only enhance their reputation by carrying this issue forwards with—and these are the key words—a steady and consistent policy.
The public recognition in this House in December 2004 was only a first step. To mean anything, it must be pursued. In particular, will the Government make a public commitment to support a UN-sponsored rerun of the flawed in 1969 “Act of Free Choice”, this time as a genuine, one-person-one-vote referendum, internationally monitored and giving the tribal peoples of West Papua the chance to choose freely between independence, free association or continued integration with Indonesia.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 92
Secondly, will the Government make more specific representations about the human rights abuses taking place, documented by Amnesty International? It has been estimated that, since 1969, more than 100,000 West Papuans have been killed and there are now some 9,000 refugees in Papua New Guinea. The Catholic Church's Papuan Peace and Justice Secretariat reported in June last year that students who had been arrested after a peaceful demonstration and been interviewed by their investigators had been denied access to legal representation and had suffered physical and mental torture. At present, there are more than 100 political prisoners in West Papua of whom I mention only two this evening, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, who were jailed for 15 and 10 years respectively for raising the West Papuan national flag—the morning star—on 1 December 2004, and who have been recognised by Amnesty International as political prisoners. The date of 1 December is significant because that was the day in 1961 that the Dutch granted West Papua independence, an independence which was quickly and sadly lost when Indonesia invaded the island in 1962, claiming it for themselves.
I understand that the Government are generally monitoring the situation of political prisoners through their embassy in Jakarta, but will they specifically raise the issue of these two prisoners of conscience, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, with the Indonesian Government and make it clear to them that not only must they be treated humanely, but that the basis of their charge and imprisonment is totally unacceptable in any society that claims to be democratic?
Then, thirdly, arising from this there is the whole question of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to form political parties, freedom of access for journalists and NGOs and the importance of achieving a genuine dialogue between the Indonesian Government and the people in West Papua who wish to raise the issue of self-determination.
At the moment the Indonesian Government lay down a pre-condition that this subject cannot even be raised in discussions. Yet that is the issue at the heart of this conflict. The West Papuans are a peace-loving people and they want to talk about what matters to them. At the moment, this is prevented by the heavy military presence and the refusal of the Indonesian authorities even to allow certain questions to be raised. Linked to this is their refusal to allow access to outsiders who raise these questions. In May of last year the UNHCR’s regional representative said in evidence to an Australian Senate inquiry,
“I can confirm that, despite repeated requests, the UNHCR has not been given permission by the Government in Jakarta to have access to West Papua”.
Other aid agencies and nearly all foreign journalists, as well as Amnesty International’s fact-finding mission, have also been refused permission to visit.
After its historic recognition in December 2004, I hope that the Government will pursue this matter with a steady and consistent policy in three ways: first, with a view to achieving a genuinely free vote about self-determination; secondly, by raising the
8 Jan 2007 : Column 93
matter of serious human rights’ abuses, particularly in relation to Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage; and, thirdly, by urging the basic freedoms of speech, assembly and access, which are absolutely fundamental to any country that regards itself as democratic.
8.36 pm
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to our attention. He has long championed the human rights of the people of West Papua, keeping their plight before the House and the British public for a number of years. He is to be thanked for doing so again this evening, and the least that we can do for him in this short debate is to press my noble friend the Minister to inject some urgency into efforts to address the flagrant denial of justice to the people of West Papua. The noble Lord has put forward an admirable programme and some practical suggestions. If every speaker simply does that, it might give the weight of the whole House this evening to some practical outcomes.
As the noble Lord said, when my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean admitted in an answer to a previous debate that the 1969 Act of Free Choice was a flawed exercise, she went on to ask a simple question: “What should happen now?”. She gave the beginnings of an answer to her own question by suggesting that, as 35 years had passed since the flawed referendum of 1969, it would be better to look to new proposals then being put forward than to continue to harp on about ancient events. Special autonomy legislation only recently passed by the Indonesian Government would, she said, grant,
“70 per cent of oil and gas royalties originating in Papua—as well as 80 per cent of forestry, fishery and mining royalties—to the people of Papua”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; cols. 1084-85.]
A truth and reconciliation committee had been set up to look into a number of the offences that people were complaining about. It would be best, said the noble Baroness, to see how the measures were embedding before we mapped a way forward.
What she did not say was that, between 1969 and 2004, the same 35 years that were considered to have consigned the referendum to ancient history, there had been a massive transmigration programme that brought 1.2 million people into West Papua of Javanese and Sumatran origin, nearly all of them Muslims. That changed the nature of Papuan society and culture radically. The Indonesian Government implemented the same policies at roughly the same time in East Timor and with the same objective—to change the nature and allegiances of a people who were being obstreperous and seeking their rights of self-determination. Incidentally, in Eritrea, Ethiopia attempted the same business of changing the nature of the population to achieve its ultimate goals.
The benefits of the new legislation—the special autonomy legislation—would accrue not to a Papuan population at all but to one so radically different that fewer than 50 per cent of the population were the original indigenous Papuans in the first place. The
8 Jan 2007 : Column 94
noble Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned the large number—more than 100,000 at the lowest estimates—of people of Papuan origin who had been killed in the same period.
We have seen in the way in which Eritrea was abandoned by its United Nations overseers in the post-war period to the whims of Ethiopia a similar case of injustice. It was a United Nations set-up body that in New York allowed Indonesia to annex West Papua to itself. The Eritrean People’s Liberation Army fought a long war of attrition to attain its rightful status, and I was present on the day of the referendum in 1993 when, with great jubilation, at last the Eritrean people felt that they had gained their objective despite the opposition of the international community; so, too, the Free Papua Movement may be counted on to maintain its opposition to the present arrangements and to seek the support of the world community in achieving its legitimate objectives.
The 1969 Act of Free Choice was both cynical and wrong. It involved about 1,000 hand-picked people; a significant number of them were tribal leaders who were rounded up a month before the referendum and indoctrinated so that they would vote as they were obliged to, at gunpoint, on the day of the referendum. The voting exercise was overseen by, of all people, the Indonesian army, mainly. There were a couple of objective overseas observers, but they left before the vote was completed. All responsible commentators agree with that analysis. No amount of truth and reconciliation will hide or play down that basic fact.
Indonesia has been seen by all the major players in the West as an important bastion against communism. The United States has played a significant part in seeing the outcomes that we are discussing this evening come to pass, but our own country is associated with it and so is Australia. Even the Vatican, because of the significant number of powerful Roman Catholics in the Indonesian republic, has preferred to turn a blind eye to some of these questions on the margin of its consideration.
In view of that, we must ask ourselves how we implement an ethical foreign policy towards this small region. The question will not go away; it did not do so in Eritrea or East Timor, nor will it in West Papua. I hope that my noble friend will help her colleagues in government to show a preferential option to those suffering injustice, as this is a case clamouring for appropriate attention.
8.43 pm
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, together with my noble friend Lord Griffiths, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harries on again drawing attention to a subject that for too long has represented a dereliction of responsibility by the international community. Any unlawful usurpation should evoke condemnation if international law is not to be brought into disrepute, but here there has been persecution, murder, evictions and burning of the villages of innocent human beings, while the world has looked on. Surely that will reflect opprobrium on our generation from those who come after us.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 95
We could debate at length the precise criteria for the right of a people to self-determination. Those debates go back to the League of Nations, but today we are spared legal hair splitting. Here, there is a population of 800,000 people, racially differentiated from the population of Indonesia, with its own history, culture, and inhabiting a clearly defined territory, yet ruled by an alien administration which by a persistent policy of repression and terror has made itself hated and feared.
We have every criterion for the right to self-determination. The principle is declared in Article 1.2 of the United Nations charter and further enshrined in the two human rights covenants of 1966. There is clear consensus that two principles follow. First, the right includes the right of a people to decide how to exercise its choice. It is for the people to decide who their delegates are to be and what the decision-making process is to be. They are entitled to do that free from any pressures, internal or external, after such free discussions as their choice may require. Secondly, the right is continuing and not exhausted once it has been exercised, validly or otherwise. A right to choose entails a right to make continuing choices as circumstances change or simply if there is a change of mind. A third principle, while we are passing, is that the right includes a right to enjoy the natural resources of the area and to decide how they are to be developed and exploited. Article 1.2 of the international economic covenant reads:
“All peoples may, for their own end, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources”,
subject, of course, to existing obligations.
The situation has a shamefully long drawn-out history of which the international community has no reason to be proud. In 1949, the Netherlands Government conceded independence to Indonesia, but vast areas had been included in the territory purely for the purposes of administration and not by any stretch of the imagination because they were a natural part of Indonesia. The Indonesian Government said that the newly acquired statehood should extend throughout that territory. The Netherlands Government said that the peoples of West Irian were entitled to decide whether they should be included in the new state or whether they should have some other status.
Up to that point, the Papuan people had not been invited to participate in the discussions. The Netherlands said that the issue should be decided by the United Nations. Indonesia said that it was an internal matter, not the concern of the international community, and that it should be resolved by negotiations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, which clearly would never eventuate in an agreement. Nevertheless, the General Assembly discussed the question in 1954 and again in 1961 but was unable to agree on a resolution. It is worth pointing out that in those debates West Papua had no representation—it had no seat in the General Assembly.
On 31 December 1961, West Papua achieved a very short-lived independence. The Indonesian Government terminated it unilaterally by military
8 Jan 2007 : Column 96
force. In 1962, Indonesia and the Netherlands reached the New York agreement, which was designed to resolve the issue. The Netherlands would transfer administration of West Papua to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority established by and answerable to the Secretary-General. It was said that arrangements would be put in place for the people of West Irian to choose in accordance with international practice and with the participation of all adults, male and female. That agreement was approved by the General Assembly, so it was accepted by all concerned that the population of West Papua was a separate and identifiable people entitled to self-determination. I hope that, in replying, my noble friend will clarify whether the Government accept that conclusion or, if not, why not.
The outcome of such a choice was predictable. We now know that John Kennedy’s ambassador reported 85 to 90 per cent of the population as being in sympathy with the Free Papua Movement. That outcome would have left Indonesia, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths said, blaming the West. The United States was concerned that if Indonesia turned to the communist bloc there would be an outpost of communism in east Asia. The Temporary Executive Authority proved to be very temporary. It was persuaded by the United States to acquiesce in the assumption of control by the Indonesian Government. That was fatal to any hope of a fair entitlement. It led to the infamous Act of Free Choice about which both noble Lords have already spoken, and I will not repeat that. It has been condemned by international lawyers and by other authorities again and again.
There the situation rests. The Indonesian Government introduced the special autonomy law in 2001, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out, but there has been no autonomy, and the atrocities go on. As all too often, the persecution, the murders and the incarcerations will continue for as long as the protest continues, and that will continue as long as the situation remains as it is. Any form of international action can take place only if it is initiated by a national Government. The United Kingdom Government still carry respect and influence in these matters. The question is whether they retain their dedication to an ethical foreign policy. I am sure that I know the answer that my noble friend would like to give; many of us are looking forward to hearing the answer that she is authorised to give.
8.51 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on introducing this important debate tonight. There were many reasons for wanting to intervene; perhaps the whole issue of human rights, to which the noble Lord referred, would be sufficient in itself. We have a Government who claim that they want to see a world based on human rights, accountable government and democracy. They want to play a full part in working towards that world. It logically follows, therefore, that we have an interest in the injustice of the situation in West Papua.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 97
I am afraid that I see in the situation too many sinister and ominous parallels with East Timor. I have visited Indonesia on a number of occasions, and I visited East Timor in the final stage, just before the terrible conflict that led to independence. The people of that part of the world are wonderful; they deserve more than they are enjoying.
Sometimes in debates of this kind we become a bit theoretical and remote in our analysis, and I therefore am not ashamed to bring to the attention of the House a letter that was brought to my attention fairly recently. It is an open letter written by Benny Wenda, the chairman of the Koteka Tribal Assembly and the leader of the West Papua Independence Movement, to the Indonesian ambassador in Britain, who had apparently expressed surprise that West Papua was seeking independence. This letter, written with some passion, was to tell him why. In the letter, Benny Wenda referred first to what we have already heard about the invasion of their land. He then referred to the referendum that was offered as a so-called act of free choice, which in fact was in the context of the ruthless intimidation of those who were likely to vote for independence. Then there was the removal of people to make way for the exploitation of gold, copper, oil and timber reserves. Again, ruthless techniques were employed, such as bombing from helicopters. People were rendered homeless, raped and murdered; all this was part of what happened.
Perhaps I can quote directly from the letter, which is passionate and written with real feeling:
“Then you started to rip open and destroy our Land. We call our Land our Mother because she gives us everything we need to live. You sold our Mother to British, American & Australian companies like Rio Tinto & BP. You got rich whilst we West Papuans got poorer, not because we want your kind of riches, but because without our Mother we die”.
He concluded:
“Now you say that we are ‘free and equal citizens of the new Indonesian democracy’. But when we tell you we want to use this ‘new free democracy’ to campaign democratically and peacefully for independence and when we just want to see our own flag flying in our own Sky, you cover our Land with soldiers, you put us in prison, you torture us and you kill us”.
I have no first-hand experience by which I can assess these accusations, but I have the experience of visits to Indonesia and to East Timor and I am afraid that the accusations ring all too true to me.
Obviously, it is not convincing to contemplate a world in which every ethnic group has a national identity of its own. That would make neither political nor economic sense. But consent is essential if countries are to stand together in meaningful democracy and freedom, and consent depends on trust. Where trust is absent—and it seems to be totally absent in this case—consent can hardly be expected. The genie is out of the bottle.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70108-0013.htm#07010827000002
Tags:
Media Barat Utk Papua
Indonesia's 'slow motion genocide'
Indonesia's 'slow motion genocide'
By ignoring Indonesian army killings in West Papua, the western press is tacitly colluding in mass murder
I have a hit list in my hand. Fifteen people are threatened with assassination because they speak out for freedom and democracy, against a massacre. One of them, in a list of civilians including church ministers, youth leaders, legislators and an anthropologist, is a friend of mine.
The hit list is compiled by Kopassus, the Indonesian army's notorious special forces unit, responsible for vicious human rights abuses in Timor-Leste and West Papua. Kopassus targets these 15 for their "prohibited speech" that has "reached the outside world", bearing witness to "the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua". These are the words of Kopassus itself, in a leaked report given to investigative reporter Allan Nairn, last month. Kopassus has not denied its veracity.
Although the US Leahy Law forbids funding to military units that violate human rights, Kopassus is now being supported by president Obama, under the guise of fighting terrorism. The Kopassus document gives the lie to that, showing their systematic targeting of civilians. Number five on their list is the current president of the Papuan Presidium Council, whose predecessor, Theys Eluay, had his throat slit in 2001. While I was in West Papua, I met the then-president, who told me he had also been the victim of a failed assassination.
My friend, a church minister, told me of widespread abuse, rape and killings. Another told me about seeing soldiers torture and murder around 100 villagers. In October, video footage showed West Papuan villagers being tortured by the military. Yelps, gulps and sobs of fear and pain momentarily broke a media silence until the websites hosting the footage were subject to cyber attacks. But the chances are you won't know anything about this, because the media does not bear witness to it. In a form of lethal meekness so well exposed by John Pilger, journalists say Indonesia refuses entry to the media. This is entirely correct and entirely spurious. It is not difficult to go there: buy a ticket, say you're a tourist, and get your notebook out.
A functional media is as important to democratic freedom as voting. West Papua has been robbed of both. Indonesia invaded in 1962. In 1969, under the "act of free choice", 1,026 West Papuans were ordered at gunpoint to vote for integration with Indonesia. This contravened international law, and was a travesty of democracy. "The process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made," said a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing that year. The American embassy in Jakarta in June 1969 knew what was in store for the Papuans: the act of free choice, according to the embassy, "is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion pre-ordained".
The reasons for this collusion become clear if you rewind to 1967, when president Suharto's men struck a deal to hand over West Papua's wealth of natural resources to international companies, including a mountain of copper and gold – now the world's most valuable mine, Freeport McMoRan.
In return, Indonesia received billions of corporate dollars plus, crucially, international connivance in covering up human rights abuses. Racism played a part: those who would suffer, said the British embassy, were merely "a relatively small number of very primitive people", occupying what a White House adviser dismissed as "a few thousand miles of cannibal land".
A massive transmigration programme of Javanese aims to make Papuans a minority in their own lands. At least 100,000 Papuans, according to Amnesty International, have been murdered, with weaponry provided by British and American companies in lucrative arms deals. Obama knows this: just ahead of his November visit to Indonesia, 50 members of the US Congress wrote to him concerning West Papua's "slow-motion genocide", and Congress held a (barely reported) hearing on Papuan human rights abuses. Human rights organisations repeatedly bring massacres and abuses to the attention of the media, who repeatedly ignore them. In these lethal omissions, the press tacitly colludes in mass murder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/indonesia-killings-west-papua-western-press
By ignoring Indonesian army killings in West Papua, the western press is tacitly colluding in mass murder
I have a hit list in my hand. Fifteen people are threatened with assassination because they speak out for freedom and democracy, against a massacre. One of them, in a list of civilians including church ministers, youth leaders, legislators and an anthropologist, is a friend of mine.
The hit list is compiled by Kopassus, the Indonesian army's notorious special forces unit, responsible for vicious human rights abuses in Timor-Leste and West Papua. Kopassus targets these 15 for their "prohibited speech" that has "reached the outside world", bearing witness to "the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua". These are the words of Kopassus itself, in a leaked report given to investigative reporter Allan Nairn, last month. Kopassus has not denied its veracity.
Although the US Leahy Law forbids funding to military units that violate human rights, Kopassus is now being supported by president Obama, under the guise of fighting terrorism. The Kopassus document gives the lie to that, showing their systematic targeting of civilians. Number five on their list is the current president of the Papuan Presidium Council, whose predecessor, Theys Eluay, had his throat slit in 2001. While I was in West Papua, I met the then-president, who told me he had also been the victim of a failed assassination.
My friend, a church minister, told me of widespread abuse, rape and killings. Another told me about seeing soldiers torture and murder around 100 villagers. In October, video footage showed West Papuan villagers being tortured by the military. Yelps, gulps and sobs of fear and pain momentarily broke a media silence until the websites hosting the footage were subject to cyber attacks. But the chances are you won't know anything about this, because the media does not bear witness to it. In a form of lethal meekness so well exposed by John Pilger, journalists say Indonesia refuses entry to the media. This is entirely correct and entirely spurious. It is not difficult to go there: buy a ticket, say you're a tourist, and get your notebook out.
A functional media is as important to democratic freedom as voting. West Papua has been robbed of both. Indonesia invaded in 1962. In 1969, under the "act of free choice", 1,026 West Papuans were ordered at gunpoint to vote for integration with Indonesia. This contravened international law, and was a travesty of democracy. "The process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made," said a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing that year. The American embassy in Jakarta in June 1969 knew what was in store for the Papuans: the act of free choice, according to the embassy, "is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion pre-ordained".
The reasons for this collusion become clear if you rewind to 1967, when president Suharto's men struck a deal to hand over West Papua's wealth of natural resources to international companies, including a mountain of copper and gold – now the world's most valuable mine, Freeport McMoRan.
In return, Indonesia received billions of corporate dollars plus, crucially, international connivance in covering up human rights abuses. Racism played a part: those who would suffer, said the British embassy, were merely "a relatively small number of very primitive people", occupying what a White House adviser dismissed as "a few thousand miles of cannibal land".
A massive transmigration programme of Javanese aims to make Papuans a minority in their own lands. At least 100,000 Papuans, according to Amnesty International, have been murdered, with weaponry provided by British and American companies in lucrative arms deals. Obama knows this: just ahead of his November visit to Indonesia, 50 members of the US Congress wrote to him concerning West Papua's "slow-motion genocide", and Congress held a (barely reported) hearing on Papuan human rights abuses. Human rights organisations repeatedly bring massacres and abuses to the attention of the media, who repeatedly ignore them. In these lethal omissions, the press tacitly colludes in mass murder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/indonesia-killings-west-papua-western-press
Tags:
Media Barat Utk Papua
JDP : Dialog Jakarta Papua Masih Terkendali
hursday, 16 December 2010 21:00
Written by Administrator
E-mail Print PDF
[JDP dan Foker LSM Papua, saat konsultasi publik (Jubi/Eveerth)] JUBI --- Muridan Widjojo, koordinator Jaringan Damai Papua (JDP) menyatakan agenda Dialog Jakarta – Papua sampai saat ini masih terkendali. Bahkan dalam proses negoisasi menuju meja dialog mengalami kemajuan.
“Perkembangan mengenai upaya dialog Jakarta Papua, sampai saat ini berjalan lancar. Ada langkah-langkah maju yang sudah di capai baik di tingkat lokal, nasional maupun internasional” kata Muridan, kepada JUBI, di Jayapura, Kamis (16/12).
Diakui Muridan, agenda dialog Jakarta Papua merupakan sebuah proses perjuangan panjang. Dan untuk mencapi di meja perudingan, kedua bela pihak yang bertikai harus memiliki kesepahaman bersama. Oleh karena itu, proses dilaog ini harus didukung oleh semua pihak, tokoh agama, tokoh masyarakat, serta lembaga swadaya masyarakat.
Soal rumusan dialog, kata dia, apa pun modelnya tak jadi soal, sebab Yang terpenting adalah bagaimana Jakarta dan Papua bisa duduk bersama membahas persoalan Papua, apakah dengan komunikasi konstruktif seperti diwacanakan Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudoyono atau kah yang lain nantinya.
Dia mengaku, meskipun ada Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP) dibentuk oleh Presiden SBY, namun tidak mempengaruhi perjuangan yang dilakukan Pastor Neles Tebay cs. "Karena itu dia meminta masyarakat Papua tidak terpengaruh berbagai isu yang mengagalkan agenda dialog," ajaknya.
“Dialog yang usung JDP ini bermaksud mulia, yakni untuk mengakhiri konflik yang terjadi di tanah Papua. Kita harus mendorong bersama proses-proses yang sedang berlangsung saat ini,” harapnya. (Yarid AP)
http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/daily-news/jayapura/10163-jdp--dialog-jakarta-papua-masih-terkendali
Written by Administrator
E-mail Print PDF
[JDP dan Foker LSM Papua, saat konsultasi publik (Jubi/Eveerth)] JUBI --- Muridan Widjojo, koordinator Jaringan Damai Papua (JDP) menyatakan agenda Dialog Jakarta – Papua sampai saat ini masih terkendali. Bahkan dalam proses negoisasi menuju meja dialog mengalami kemajuan.
“Perkembangan mengenai upaya dialog Jakarta Papua, sampai saat ini berjalan lancar. Ada langkah-langkah maju yang sudah di capai baik di tingkat lokal, nasional maupun internasional” kata Muridan, kepada JUBI, di Jayapura, Kamis (16/12).
Diakui Muridan, agenda dialog Jakarta Papua merupakan sebuah proses perjuangan panjang. Dan untuk mencapi di meja perudingan, kedua bela pihak yang bertikai harus memiliki kesepahaman bersama. Oleh karena itu, proses dilaog ini harus didukung oleh semua pihak, tokoh agama, tokoh masyarakat, serta lembaga swadaya masyarakat.
Soal rumusan dialog, kata dia, apa pun modelnya tak jadi soal, sebab Yang terpenting adalah bagaimana Jakarta dan Papua bisa duduk bersama membahas persoalan Papua, apakah dengan komunikasi konstruktif seperti diwacanakan Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudoyono atau kah yang lain nantinya.
Dia mengaku, meskipun ada Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP) dibentuk oleh Presiden SBY, namun tidak mempengaruhi perjuangan yang dilakukan Pastor Neles Tebay cs. "Karena itu dia meminta masyarakat Papua tidak terpengaruh berbagai isu yang mengagalkan agenda dialog," ajaknya.
“Dialog yang usung JDP ini bermaksud mulia, yakni untuk mengakhiri konflik yang terjadi di tanah Papua. Kita harus mendorong bersama proses-proses yang sedang berlangsung saat ini,” harapnya. (Yarid AP)
http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/daily-news/jayapura/10163-jdp--dialog-jakarta-papua-masih-terkendali
Tags:
JDP
A Christmas Message from the BWA
December 15, 2010 |
Washington (BWA)--It is the season of joy! Treasure the opportunity you have to listen to the beautiful music. Share the rich warmth of family and friendship. Offer gifts to friends, loved ones and people in need. Echo the refrain, 'Tis the most wonderful time of the year! Yet, step back from the glitter and glamour so evident in some places during these days and take one good long look at the image of the child in the manger. Does it not provide a powerful stimulus for us to revisit the nature of powerlessness? This child is wrapped in the robes of mystery. This tiny child is God made flesh before our very eyes. He is omnipotence wrapped in strips of cloth, omnipresence placed to a drinking trough for animals, omniscience confined to a bed of straw! This little child finds common cause with those who have no place to lay their weary head. At his birth, the trappings of nobility are nowhere to be seen; the signs of privilege have disappeared into oblivion. The child in the manger is an object lesson in the mystery of powerlessness! The time would come when this powerless child of Bethlehem would be recognized as the Savior of the world. Whether he was lying in a manger or hanging from a cross, he would appear to be a victim of circumstance, a person to be pitied, and a model of helplessness. Yet, true power is absent unless it shines forth through the wrappings of powerlessness. Real self emptying and self denial are possible only for those who truly know the power of God. A life of sacrificial service rendered with joy is the only option for those who come to know the powerlessness of the Christ child. This powerlessness is not to be confused with the helplessness that knows nothing but the misery of desperation. It is instead the submissiveness that consists in voluntary entrance into the community of the homeless poor in order to transform it into a seedbed of rich possibilities. This is the powerlessness that knows the trenches, sits at ease with the dispossessed, and enjoys the company of those pushed to the periphery of society. What we see in the manger and what we celebrate at Christmastime is the awesome power of powerlessness! When we experience this powerlessness, the Holy Spirit empowers us to truly become the servant of all. Then, through the service we render, we can help transform the world. The little baby in the manger is a powerful sign of God manifesting the divine love that opens the way to life for all the world. He became poor so that we, through his poverty, might become rich (cf. 2 Corinthians 8:9). Neville Callam BWA General Secretary |
Tags:
BWANews
KEKERASAN STRUKTURAL DI PAPUA NOV-DES 2010
POTRET SINGKAT
PERISTIWA PENEMBAKAN, PENYISIRAN DAN PENAHANAN
TERHADAP WARGA SIPIL PAPUA
PADA BULAN NOVEMBER-DESEMBER 2010
DI TANAH PAPUA
====================================================================================
oleh Dominikus Surabut
Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir ini, setiap mendekati dan menyelang Bulan Desember pertumbahan darah selalu di selimuti dalam ketenangan dan keakraban rakyat Papua. Hal ini terlihat dengan peristiwa pertumpahan darah mulai dari Penculikan Theys H. Eluay, penembakan terhadap Kelly Kwalik dan lain-lain. Dalam ingatan rakyat Papua, bulan November dan Desember merupakan bulan yang sangat krusial, karena Pemerintah selalu menduplikasi 1 Desember hari kemerdekaan bangsa Papua dengan mengklaim melalui upaya pengkondisian konflik dengan tindakan-tindakan brutal yang melanggar Hak Asasi Manusia Papua. Juga bagi mayoritas rakyat Papua bulan Desember mempersiapkan masa advent dan pesta Natal, namun selalu di nodai dengan tangisan air mata. Makna Natal bagi rakyat Papua sama sekali tidak berarti.
Akhir tahun 2010 di bulan November dan Desember ini telah terjadi beberapa peristiwa kekerasan, pengerebekan, penyitaan harta kekayaan dan lain sebagainya, yang meresakan masyarakat Papua, seperti penembakan terhadap 5 orang warga sipil di Kampung Nafri. Sebelum peristiwa penembakan di Kampung Nafri, ada beberapa peristiwa sebelum sudah terjadi misalnya pembakaran rumah di kampung Yoka akibat lagu yang melecehkan martabat rakyat Pegunungan Tengah Papua, secara umum orang Papua, dan perang suku di Timika kwamki lama serta Distrik Iwur dan Distrik Batom Kab. Pegunungan Bintang, terjadi mobilisasi rakyat besar-besaran, bahwa 1 Desember 2010 akan dilaksanakan Referendum di Papua.
Penyerangan terhadap warga sipil di kampung Nafri yang gagal diidentifikasikan pelaku penembakan, maka aparat gabungan (TNI/Polri) mencurigai bahwa pelaku penyerangan warga sipil di kampung Nafri adalah rakyat Pegunungan tengah Papua, sehingga secara brutal aparat melakukan penyisiran, penyitaan harta dan penahanan terhadap warga sipil di sekitar perkampungan Nafri dan tanah hitam. Juga pada saat bersamaan terjadi penembakan penghuni lapas Abe Miron Wetipo, oleh anggota Polisi hendak melarikan diri, akibatnya Filep Karma dan Buchtar Tabuni cs di pindahkan ke Tahanan Polda Papua, Penembakan 2 orang warga (Atili Wenda dan Elius Tabuni) di Bolakme sedang sembayang di kampung Yugum, penembakan Wendiman Wenda di Yambi Puncak Jaya saat gali ubi di kebun. Serta tertabraknya Siprianus Mirip di Waena dan pencekalan Sebby Sambom, hendak berangkat ke Jakarta oleh Aparat kepolisian di Sentani.
Konflik ini sengaja dikelola dan dikembangkan untuk menyudutkan satu kelompok dan atau menjadi kelompok sasaran, terlebih kepada orang Papua menyeret pada tindakan makar dan sepratis terlebih orang Papua dijadikan sebagai teroris.
Secara terperinci peristiwa tersebut ada dalam tabel dibawah ini:
Tabel kekerasan Akhir November-awal Desember 2010
No Waktu Peristiwa Kekerasan, penyisiran, dan penahanan
1 Minggu, 28 November 2010 1. Penembakan di kampung Nafri Abepura Jayapura, pada jam 10.00: Riswandi Yunus (35) tertembak di leher kiri dan tewas seketika di tempat kejadian. Korban lainnya adalah Fernal Nongka (10), tertembak di dada kiri dan kanan, Alex Nongka (40) di lengan kanan bagian atas, dan Baharudin (49) serta Dian Novita di tangan kanan. Penembakan yang diduga oleh kelompok sipil bersenjata.
2. Penembakan di Yambi Puncak Jaya, jam 13.00 terhadap Wendiman Wenda (55 th) tewas, oleh TNI sedang mengali ubi di kebun, diduga TPN OPM pasukan Goliat Tabuni.
2 Senin, 29 November 2010 Penyisiran dan Penangkapan oleh aparat gabungan (TNI/Polri) terhadap warga sipil yang bermukim di kampung nafri (rakyat Pegunungan Tengah Papua) atas nama Jere Kogoya dan Annidigen Kogoya, pada jam 04 Sore. Mereka ini diduga pelaku penembakan di kampung Nafri, kemudian diamankan di Polresta Jayapura.
3 Rabu, 1 Desember 2010 Penembakan oleh aparat gabungan ( TNI/Polri) di Distrik Bolakme Wamena atas nama Atili Wenda dan Elius Tabuni. Jam 11.00 , sedang beribadah dikampung Yugum.
4 Jumat, 03 Desember 2010 1. Aparat gabungan (TNI/Polri) melakukan penyisiran sekitar jam 03.00 subu di rumah milik Dani Kogoya di kompleks BTN Puskopad Tanah Hitam, Abepura. Dan menangkap warga sipil:
a. Ev. Yesmin Yikwa
b. Yupiter Tabuni
c. Tenius Yikwa
d. Manu Kogoya
e. Lambert Siep
f. Nalius Karoba
g. Yumbuk Yikwa
h. Yotan Kogoya
2. Polisi telah menembak 1 orang tahanan LP Abe hendak melarikan diri atas nama: Miron Wetipo dan 3 orang melarikan diri; Nama-nama lain yang melarikan diri yakni: Jhon Wandik, Urbanus Mabel, Marnus Togodli, Paro Kosay, Yohanis Elokpere. Pada Jam 04.00 Pagi.
3. Pada jam 12 malam, di Toko Papua perumnas 1 Waena, tertabrak mati atas nama Siprianus Mirip, 20 Tahun (mahasiswa Uncen Jurusan IKS Semester 5).
5 Sabtu, 04 Desember 2010 1. Filep Karma dan Buchtar Tabuni Cs diduga menghasut para penghuni narapida lapas Abe untuk mengamuk akibat tewas tertembaknya salah satu anggota Lapas Miron Wetipo, sehingga diamankan ke Tahanan Isolasi Polda Papua. Berssama dengan tahanan lain adalah, Dominggus Pulalo , Alex Elopere , dan Lopes Karubaba. Pada pagi hari. Sampai detik ini Polisi tidak membuka ruang untuk keluarga dan kawan-kawan aktivis datang melihat kondisi Filep dan Buchtar. Kondisi Pilep Karma sedang kritis akibat mogok makan dari sejak awal.
2. Jam 08.00, Sebby Sambom, rencana ke jakarta melalui maskapai penerbangan pesawat Garuda Indonesia menuju Makassar-Jakarta, dicekal oleh Aparat kepolisian dan Jaksa kemudian titip di Lapas Narkoba Sentani.
Dari fenomena dan tindakan nyata yang telah mengemuka dalam peristiwa penyisiran dan pengerebekan, pencegalan bahkan penembakan jiwa rakyat sipil, semuanya dalam upaya pengkondisian (pengkondisian wilayah, pengkondisian ketakutan, pengkondisian isu,dan lain-lain). Setiap orang Papua selanjutnya dikondisikan untuk pembuat kerusuhan dan kekacauan merupakan perilaku umum dari kelompok tertentu di Papua ( diarahkan kelompok masyarakat dari pegunungan tengah Papua). Setiap orang Papua juga dikondisikan untuk memahami bahwa akan tertembak mati secara tragis jika mencoba-coba untuk melakukan aksi-aksi seperti mencoba merongrong kewibawaan kedaulatan negara kesatuan republik Indonesia. Situasi-situasi seperti ini membawa kita kepada cara-cara yang dipakai untuk menekan kebebasan hak-hak setiap orang untuk berekspresi, berkumpul, berbicara, dan berpendapat. Siapa saja ditangkap untuk menjustifikasi bahwa apa yang dituduhkan adalah benar pelaku kejahatan, apalagi ditunjang dengan ciri-ciri : asal suku yang sama, nama keluarga (klen) yang sama, dan lain-lain, untuk mengkambinghitamkan dan ketakutan dalam diri masyarakat. Ini adalah hal yang jauh dari kehidupan tentram yang diinginkan bersama oleh kita semua.
Berkaitan dengan peristiwa ini, secara keseluruhan terlihat bahwa:
1. Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi Papua, Kapolda Papua, dan Pangdam XVII/ Cenderawasih sedang membungkam semua peristiwa kekerasaan di Papua, dan sedang mengabaikan penjelasan kepada masyarakat mengenai apa yang sebenarnya terjadi.
2. Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi Papua, Kapolda Papua, dan Pangdam XVII/ Cenderawasih dengan sengaja memelihara kekerasan dengan penegakan hukum dan hak asasi manusia.
3. Kapolda Papua tanpa prosedur hukum dan HAM sewenang-wenang menangkap dan menahan serta menyiksa warga sipil atas dasar stigma terhadap orang Papua, khususnya kelompok muda dan warga Papua ( asal Pegunungan Tengah Papua).
Oleh sebab itu, perlu dilakukan penyelidikan mendalam dan komprehensif terhadap rentetan kejadian di atas sesuai dengan mandat yang diatur dalam UU No. 39/1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia serta mengumumkan hasilnya kepada seluruh masyarakat dan memberikan jaminan perlindungan kepada para korban tak bersalah yang tengah mengalami tahanan.
Demikian Potret Kekerasan di Tanah Papua November dan Desember 2010
PERISTIWA PENEMBAKAN, PENYISIRAN DAN PENAHANAN
TERHADAP WARGA SIPIL PAPUA
PADA BULAN NOVEMBER-DESEMBER 2010
DI TANAH PAPUA
====================================================================================
oleh Dominikus Surabut
Dalam beberapa tahun terakhir ini, setiap mendekati dan menyelang Bulan Desember pertumbahan darah selalu di selimuti dalam ketenangan dan keakraban rakyat Papua. Hal ini terlihat dengan peristiwa pertumpahan darah mulai dari Penculikan Theys H. Eluay, penembakan terhadap Kelly Kwalik dan lain-lain. Dalam ingatan rakyat Papua, bulan November dan Desember merupakan bulan yang sangat krusial, karena Pemerintah selalu menduplikasi 1 Desember hari kemerdekaan bangsa Papua dengan mengklaim melalui upaya pengkondisian konflik dengan tindakan-tindakan brutal yang melanggar Hak Asasi Manusia Papua. Juga bagi mayoritas rakyat Papua bulan Desember mempersiapkan masa advent dan pesta Natal, namun selalu di nodai dengan tangisan air mata. Makna Natal bagi rakyat Papua sama sekali tidak berarti.
Akhir tahun 2010 di bulan November dan Desember ini telah terjadi beberapa peristiwa kekerasan, pengerebekan, penyitaan harta kekayaan dan lain sebagainya, yang meresakan masyarakat Papua, seperti penembakan terhadap 5 orang warga sipil di Kampung Nafri. Sebelum peristiwa penembakan di Kampung Nafri, ada beberapa peristiwa sebelum sudah terjadi misalnya pembakaran rumah di kampung Yoka akibat lagu yang melecehkan martabat rakyat Pegunungan Tengah Papua, secara umum orang Papua, dan perang suku di Timika kwamki lama serta Distrik Iwur dan Distrik Batom Kab. Pegunungan Bintang, terjadi mobilisasi rakyat besar-besaran, bahwa 1 Desember 2010 akan dilaksanakan Referendum di Papua.
Penyerangan terhadap warga sipil di kampung Nafri yang gagal diidentifikasikan pelaku penembakan, maka aparat gabungan (TNI/Polri) mencurigai bahwa pelaku penyerangan warga sipil di kampung Nafri adalah rakyat Pegunungan tengah Papua, sehingga secara brutal aparat melakukan penyisiran, penyitaan harta dan penahanan terhadap warga sipil di sekitar perkampungan Nafri dan tanah hitam. Juga pada saat bersamaan terjadi penembakan penghuni lapas Abe Miron Wetipo, oleh anggota Polisi hendak melarikan diri, akibatnya Filep Karma dan Buchtar Tabuni cs di pindahkan ke Tahanan Polda Papua, Penembakan 2 orang warga (Atili Wenda dan Elius Tabuni) di Bolakme sedang sembayang di kampung Yugum, penembakan Wendiman Wenda di Yambi Puncak Jaya saat gali ubi di kebun. Serta tertabraknya Siprianus Mirip di Waena dan pencekalan Sebby Sambom, hendak berangkat ke Jakarta oleh Aparat kepolisian di Sentani.
Konflik ini sengaja dikelola dan dikembangkan untuk menyudutkan satu kelompok dan atau menjadi kelompok sasaran, terlebih kepada orang Papua menyeret pada tindakan makar dan sepratis terlebih orang Papua dijadikan sebagai teroris.
Secara terperinci peristiwa tersebut ada dalam tabel dibawah ini:
Tabel kekerasan Akhir November-awal Desember 2010
No Waktu Peristiwa Kekerasan, penyisiran, dan penahanan
1 Minggu, 28 November 2010 1. Penembakan di kampung Nafri Abepura Jayapura, pada jam 10.00: Riswandi Yunus (35) tertembak di leher kiri dan tewas seketika di tempat kejadian. Korban lainnya adalah Fernal Nongka (10), tertembak di dada kiri dan kanan, Alex Nongka (40) di lengan kanan bagian atas, dan Baharudin (49) serta Dian Novita di tangan kanan. Penembakan yang diduga oleh kelompok sipil bersenjata.
2. Penembakan di Yambi Puncak Jaya, jam 13.00 terhadap Wendiman Wenda (55 th) tewas, oleh TNI sedang mengali ubi di kebun, diduga TPN OPM pasukan Goliat Tabuni.
2 Senin, 29 November 2010 Penyisiran dan Penangkapan oleh aparat gabungan (TNI/Polri) terhadap warga sipil yang bermukim di kampung nafri (rakyat Pegunungan Tengah Papua) atas nama Jere Kogoya dan Annidigen Kogoya, pada jam 04 Sore. Mereka ini diduga pelaku penembakan di kampung Nafri, kemudian diamankan di Polresta Jayapura.
3 Rabu, 1 Desember 2010 Penembakan oleh aparat gabungan ( TNI/Polri) di Distrik Bolakme Wamena atas nama Atili Wenda dan Elius Tabuni. Jam 11.00 , sedang beribadah dikampung Yugum.
4 Jumat, 03 Desember 2010 1. Aparat gabungan (TNI/Polri) melakukan penyisiran sekitar jam 03.00 subu di rumah milik Dani Kogoya di kompleks BTN Puskopad Tanah Hitam, Abepura. Dan menangkap warga sipil:
a. Ev. Yesmin Yikwa
b. Yupiter Tabuni
c. Tenius Yikwa
d. Manu Kogoya
e. Lambert Siep
f. Nalius Karoba
g. Yumbuk Yikwa
h. Yotan Kogoya
2. Polisi telah menembak 1 orang tahanan LP Abe hendak melarikan diri atas nama: Miron Wetipo dan 3 orang melarikan diri; Nama-nama lain yang melarikan diri yakni: Jhon Wandik, Urbanus Mabel, Marnus Togodli, Paro Kosay, Yohanis Elokpere. Pada Jam 04.00 Pagi.
3. Pada jam 12 malam, di Toko Papua perumnas 1 Waena, tertabrak mati atas nama Siprianus Mirip, 20 Tahun (mahasiswa Uncen Jurusan IKS Semester 5).
5 Sabtu, 04 Desember 2010 1. Filep Karma dan Buchtar Tabuni Cs diduga menghasut para penghuni narapida lapas Abe untuk mengamuk akibat tewas tertembaknya salah satu anggota Lapas Miron Wetipo, sehingga diamankan ke Tahanan Isolasi Polda Papua. Berssama dengan tahanan lain adalah, Dominggus Pulalo , Alex Elopere , dan Lopes Karubaba. Pada pagi hari. Sampai detik ini Polisi tidak membuka ruang untuk keluarga dan kawan-kawan aktivis datang melihat kondisi Filep dan Buchtar. Kondisi Pilep Karma sedang kritis akibat mogok makan dari sejak awal.
2. Jam 08.00, Sebby Sambom, rencana ke jakarta melalui maskapai penerbangan pesawat Garuda Indonesia menuju Makassar-Jakarta, dicekal oleh Aparat kepolisian dan Jaksa kemudian titip di Lapas Narkoba Sentani.
Dari fenomena dan tindakan nyata yang telah mengemuka dalam peristiwa penyisiran dan pengerebekan, pencegalan bahkan penembakan jiwa rakyat sipil, semuanya dalam upaya pengkondisian (pengkondisian wilayah, pengkondisian ketakutan, pengkondisian isu,dan lain-lain). Setiap orang Papua selanjutnya dikondisikan untuk pembuat kerusuhan dan kekacauan merupakan perilaku umum dari kelompok tertentu di Papua ( diarahkan kelompok masyarakat dari pegunungan tengah Papua). Setiap orang Papua juga dikondisikan untuk memahami bahwa akan tertembak mati secara tragis jika mencoba-coba untuk melakukan aksi-aksi seperti mencoba merongrong kewibawaan kedaulatan negara kesatuan republik Indonesia. Situasi-situasi seperti ini membawa kita kepada cara-cara yang dipakai untuk menekan kebebasan hak-hak setiap orang untuk berekspresi, berkumpul, berbicara, dan berpendapat. Siapa saja ditangkap untuk menjustifikasi bahwa apa yang dituduhkan adalah benar pelaku kejahatan, apalagi ditunjang dengan ciri-ciri : asal suku yang sama, nama keluarga (klen) yang sama, dan lain-lain, untuk mengkambinghitamkan dan ketakutan dalam diri masyarakat. Ini adalah hal yang jauh dari kehidupan tentram yang diinginkan bersama oleh kita semua.
Berkaitan dengan peristiwa ini, secara keseluruhan terlihat bahwa:
1. Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi Papua, Kapolda Papua, dan Pangdam XVII/ Cenderawasih sedang membungkam semua peristiwa kekerasaan di Papua, dan sedang mengabaikan penjelasan kepada masyarakat mengenai apa yang sebenarnya terjadi.
2. Pemerintah Daerah Provinsi Papua, Kapolda Papua, dan Pangdam XVII/ Cenderawasih dengan sengaja memelihara kekerasan dengan penegakan hukum dan hak asasi manusia.
3. Kapolda Papua tanpa prosedur hukum dan HAM sewenang-wenang menangkap dan menahan serta menyiksa warga sipil atas dasar stigma terhadap orang Papua, khususnya kelompok muda dan warga Papua ( asal Pegunungan Tengah Papua).
Oleh sebab itu, perlu dilakukan penyelidikan mendalam dan komprehensif terhadap rentetan kejadian di atas sesuai dengan mandat yang diatur dalam UU No. 39/1999 tentang Hak Asasi Manusia serta mengumumkan hasilnya kepada seluruh masyarakat dan memberikan jaminan perlindungan kepada para korban tak bersalah yang tengah mengalami tahanan.
Demikian Potret Kekerasan di Tanah Papua November dan Desember 2010
Tags:
Situasi HAM Papua
Korean Christians condemn missile attack
Washington (BWA)--Christians in South Korea have condemned the November 23 shelling of the island of Yeonpyeong by North Korea that killed at least four South Koreans, two of them civilians.
"The major Christian organizations released statements condemning North Korea's cruel bloodshed that caused a national crisis," wrote former Baptist World Alliance (BWA) President Billy Kim. "Nationwide, prayer meetings are being held for the peace of the Korean Peninsula."
Christians are helping those who were affected by the missile attack, providing food, water and shelter, Kim said. "Korean churches and Christian organizations are actively involved in providing humanitarian relief."
Kim, who was BWA president from 2000-2005, stated that church offerings are being collected to assist in repairing the Marine Chapel that was damaged during the attack. The Suwon Central Baptist Church pledged US$20,000 toward the repairs.
"I will appreciate continued prayers for peace over the Korean peninsula," the former Baptist world leader stated.
"The major Christian organizations released statements condemning North Korea's cruel bloodshed that caused a national crisis," wrote former Baptist World Alliance (BWA) President Billy Kim. "Nationwide, prayer meetings are being held for the peace of the Korean Peninsula."
Christians are helping those who were affected by the missile attack, providing food, water and shelter, Kim said. "Korean churches and Christian organizations are actively involved in providing humanitarian relief."
Kim, who was BWA president from 2000-2005, stated that church offerings are being collected to assist in repairing the Marine Chapel that was damaged during the attack. The Suwon Central Baptist Church pledged US$20,000 toward the repairs.
"I will appreciate continued prayers for peace over the Korean peninsula," the former Baptist world leader stated.
Tags:
BWANews
Kasus Pelanggaran HAM Papua Dinilai Masih Berlanjut
JUBI --- Kekerasan terhadap warga sipil dan kasus pelanggaran HAM di Papua secara umum masih terus berlanjut, bahkan sejumlah kasus tersebut mengalami kemunduran.
Hal ini disampaikan Ketua Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Tindak Kekerasan (Kontras) Papua, Harry Maturbongs, sekaligus menyambut hari Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) Internasional pada Jumat (10/12) besok.
"Penyelesaian kasus pelanggaran HAM hingga kini mengalami kemunduran, sebab hingga kini tidak ada langkah maju dan perhatian yang serius dari pemerintah,” ujarnya kepada wartawan dalam sebuah jumpa pers di Abepura, Kamis (9/12).
Dia menjelaskan, refleksi yang disampaikan kali ini dilakukan untuk menjelang peringatan hari pelanggaran HAM sedunia yang jatuh pada Jumat (10/11) besok. Tapi juga, mengingatkan kembali pemerintah agar berupaya menuntaskan kasus HAM yang selama ini masih melanda Papua.
Dari realese yang diberikan menjelaskan, setelah berjalan kurang lebih sembilan tahun ternyata harapan adanya Otsus Papua membuat Papua lebih damai dan “absen”akan kekerasan justru tidak berbanding lurus. Tapi juga tak membuahkan harapan atau cita-cita Otsus itu sendiri.
Perlu juga di catat bahwa ada sejumlah kasus besar misalnya, kasus Wasior, Wamena, puncak Jaya, Tinggi nambut, Serui, Abepura –Uncen, Mamberamo, Nabire, Manokwari dan penangkapan serta penahanan beberapa orang aktivis pro demokrasi merupakan potret nyata kasus yang terjadi selama era Otsus Papua.
Seluruh kasus tersebut tidak satu pun terselesaikan dengan baik atau pun melalui mekanisme legal yang seharusnya di lakukan oleh aparat keamanan dan hukum dengan semestinya. Dalam arti bahwa penyelesaiannya belum memberikan rasa keadilan bagi orang Papua di mana para pelakunya belum pernah diadili oleh Negara.
Sementara itu, Yusman Conoras dari Foker LSM Papua menilai, hingga kini tak peran dari lembaga yang berpihak kepada rakyat untuk menyelesaikan kasus pelanggaran HAM Papua. Diantaranya, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua, Majelis Rakyat Papua, dan Pemerintah Provinsi Papua.
Konoras menambahkan, lembaga-lembaga ini nyaris melupakan kasus HAM Papua. dengan demikian tak ada upaya penyelesaiannya. “Lembaga-lembaga ini sampe sekarang nyaris tidak bertindak terhadap sejumlah kasus HAM yang terjadi di Papua sampai saat ini,” ungkapnya. (Musa Abubar)
Hal ini disampaikan Ketua Komisi untuk Orang Hilang dan Tindak Kekerasan (Kontras) Papua, Harry Maturbongs, sekaligus menyambut hari Hak Asasi Manusia (HAM) Internasional pada Jumat (10/12) besok.
"Penyelesaian kasus pelanggaran HAM hingga kini mengalami kemunduran, sebab hingga kini tidak ada langkah maju dan perhatian yang serius dari pemerintah,” ujarnya kepada wartawan dalam sebuah jumpa pers di Abepura, Kamis (9/12).
Dia menjelaskan, refleksi yang disampaikan kali ini dilakukan untuk menjelang peringatan hari pelanggaran HAM sedunia yang jatuh pada Jumat (10/11) besok. Tapi juga, mengingatkan kembali pemerintah agar berupaya menuntaskan kasus HAM yang selama ini masih melanda Papua.
Dari realese yang diberikan menjelaskan, setelah berjalan kurang lebih sembilan tahun ternyata harapan adanya Otsus Papua membuat Papua lebih damai dan “absen”akan kekerasan justru tidak berbanding lurus. Tapi juga tak membuahkan harapan atau cita-cita Otsus itu sendiri.
Perlu juga di catat bahwa ada sejumlah kasus besar misalnya, kasus Wasior, Wamena, puncak Jaya, Tinggi nambut, Serui, Abepura –Uncen, Mamberamo, Nabire, Manokwari dan penangkapan serta penahanan beberapa orang aktivis pro demokrasi merupakan potret nyata kasus yang terjadi selama era Otsus Papua.
Seluruh kasus tersebut tidak satu pun terselesaikan dengan baik atau pun melalui mekanisme legal yang seharusnya di lakukan oleh aparat keamanan dan hukum dengan semestinya. Dalam arti bahwa penyelesaiannya belum memberikan rasa keadilan bagi orang Papua di mana para pelakunya belum pernah diadili oleh Negara.
Sementara itu, Yusman Conoras dari Foker LSM Papua menilai, hingga kini tak peran dari lembaga yang berpihak kepada rakyat untuk menyelesaikan kasus pelanggaran HAM Papua. Diantaranya, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua, Majelis Rakyat Papua, dan Pemerintah Provinsi Papua.
Konoras menambahkan, lembaga-lembaga ini nyaris melupakan kasus HAM Papua. dengan demikian tak ada upaya penyelesaiannya. “Lembaga-lembaga ini sampe sekarang nyaris tidak bertindak terhadap sejumlah kasus HAM yang terjadi di Papua sampai saat ini,” ungkapnya. (Musa Abubar)
Tags:
Situasi HAM Papua
Yoman : WVI Tidak Perlu Urus Politik Orang Papua
Thursday, 09 December 2010 21:37
JUBI –-- Adanya pemberian legitimasi dalam workshop World Vision Internasional (WVI) terhadap kehadiran Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP), dinilai sebagai pencampuran hak politik untuk mendukung kekerasan di tanah Papua.
Hal tersebut disampaikan oleh Pdt. Socratez Sofyan Yoman, menyikapi acara tersebut yang telah digelar di Depok, bulan Agustus 2010 lalu. “WVI tidak perlu mengurusi hak politik Orang Papua, namun kalau memang WVI ingin menolong Orang Papua, dia harus mendorong dialog yang digagas oleh Orang Papua, dalam hal ini Dialog yang sekarang sedang didorong oleh beberapa intelektual Papua yaitu Pater Neles Tebay dan kawan-kawan, “ ujar Socrates Sofyan Yoman, kepada JUBI, di Padang Buloan, Abepura, Kamis (9/12).
Socratez sendiri merupakan salah satu pemimpin agama di Tanah Papua yang diundang dalam workshop World Vision International (WVI) yang dilaksanakan di Depok, Agustus lalu adalah Socrates Sofyan Yoman yang ternyata tidak dapat hadir dalam pertemuan tersebut menyesalkan pemberian legitimasi terhadap kehadiran Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP).
Dirinya mengakui tidak lagi respek terhadap apa yang dilakukan oleh WVI atas apa yang dilakukan di Depok Agustus lalu. “Kami melihat WVI sebagai alat yang hendak mendukung kekerasan di Tanah Papua, dia (WVI) bertopeng membangun Papua tetapi membawa agenda-agenda Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI) yang identik dengan kekerasan, ekploitasi, diskriminasi,” ujar penulis buku Pemusnahan Etnis Melanesia yang mengundang kontra versi di kalangan masyarakat luas.
“Diantara 12 murid Tuhan Yesus, ada Yudas yang menjadi penghianat. WVI adalah murid Tuhan yang berkhianat pada pelayanan misi Kristus. Banyak lembaga-lembaga yang menggunakan label salib Kristus tetapi menindas umat Allah. Banyak aparatur negara yang mengaku Kristen, tiap minggu ke gereja tetapi melakukan kekerasan umat Allah.”
Workshop yang diprakarsai oleh WVI di Depok pada Agustus lalu melahirkan Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP) yang seolah-olah menjadi media pembanding dialog yang diusung Jaringan Damai Papua (JDP). (Aprila Wayar)
JUBI –-- Adanya pemberian legitimasi dalam workshop World Vision Internasional (WVI) terhadap kehadiran Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP), dinilai sebagai pencampuran hak politik untuk mendukung kekerasan di tanah Papua.
Hal tersebut disampaikan oleh Pdt. Socratez Sofyan Yoman, menyikapi acara tersebut yang telah digelar di Depok, bulan Agustus 2010 lalu. “WVI tidak perlu mengurusi hak politik Orang Papua, namun kalau memang WVI ingin menolong Orang Papua, dia harus mendorong dialog yang digagas oleh Orang Papua, dalam hal ini Dialog yang sekarang sedang didorong oleh beberapa intelektual Papua yaitu Pater Neles Tebay dan kawan-kawan, “ ujar Socrates Sofyan Yoman, kepada JUBI, di Padang Buloan, Abepura, Kamis (9/12).
Socratez sendiri merupakan salah satu pemimpin agama di Tanah Papua yang diundang dalam workshop World Vision International (WVI) yang dilaksanakan di Depok, Agustus lalu adalah Socrates Sofyan Yoman yang ternyata tidak dapat hadir dalam pertemuan tersebut menyesalkan pemberian legitimasi terhadap kehadiran Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP).
Dirinya mengakui tidak lagi respek terhadap apa yang dilakukan oleh WVI atas apa yang dilakukan di Depok Agustus lalu. “Kami melihat WVI sebagai alat yang hendak mendukung kekerasan di Tanah Papua, dia (WVI) bertopeng membangun Papua tetapi membawa agenda-agenda Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI) yang identik dengan kekerasan, ekploitasi, diskriminasi,” ujar penulis buku Pemusnahan Etnis Melanesia yang mengundang kontra versi di kalangan masyarakat luas.
“Diantara 12 murid Tuhan Yesus, ada Yudas yang menjadi penghianat. WVI adalah murid Tuhan yang berkhianat pada pelayanan misi Kristus. Banyak lembaga-lembaga yang menggunakan label salib Kristus tetapi menindas umat Allah. Banyak aparatur negara yang mengaku Kristen, tiap minggu ke gereja tetapi melakukan kekerasan umat Allah.”
Workshop yang diprakarsai oleh WVI di Depok pada Agustus lalu melahirkan Forum Komunikasi Konstruktif Papua (FKKP) yang seolah-olah menjadi media pembanding dialog yang diusung Jaringan Damai Papua (JDP). (Aprila Wayar)
Tags:
Suara Kenabian Papua
Baptists urged to observe Human Rights Day
December 9, 2010
Washington (BWA)--The Baptist World Alliance calls on Baptist churches around the world to make time during this season of celebration to reaffirm our commitment to human rights through the observance of Human Rights Day.
Human Rights Day is celebrated annually across the world on December 10 in honor of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the first global enunciation of that kind, on December 10, 1948.
For more than three decades, the BWA has encouraged Baptist churches to highlight this emphasis by promoting Human Rights Day. We urge all Baptist churches around the world to reaffirm this historical commitment by observing Human Rights Day on their days of worship on December 11 or 12.
2010 is the 62nd anniversary of the UDHR. The declaration has served as an ideal to be pursued by every nation, and has inspired the implementation of laws at national and international levels to protect the basic rights of individuals and peoples. A global movement for human rights has sprung from it, and has generated greater awareness not only of the intrinsic rights of every human being, but also of the existing violation of those rights in various places around the world.
Today, the principle of the sovereignty of the national state is understood vis-à-vis the respect for the basic rights of the individual. When those rights are not respected, the international community is urged to act through the mechanisms of international law and popular mobilization in favor of those whose rights have been violated irrespective of their nationality.
Human rights advocacy, however, is a continuous process and struggle. It is a constant battle against the evil of dehumanization and of disrespect for God's image in each person.
Theologically speaking, human rights spring from the theological understanding of human dignity, which is a gift from God to all human beings. Human rights are the socially constructed instruments through which human dignity is protected and promoted.
Human rights are reflected in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which includes the idea of the dignity of human beings created in God's image; the promotion in the Decalogue of respect for God and for the neighbor; the claim of the Hebrew prophets in defense of the poor, the widow, and the foreigner; and the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his call for the reconciliation of the world.
Furthermore, although we value the symbolism of the International Declaration of Human Rights, as Christians, we understand that declarations of human rights need to be fleshed out by men and women continuously committed to stand up for the oppressed.
Baptist theologian Thorwald Lorenzen stated, "The concern for human rights is intimately interwoven with the history and theology of Baptists." The origins of the Baptist vision were closely linked with the claim for religious liberty, for freedom of conscience, for freedom of opinion, and with freedom of assembly.
Already in 1612, Baptist pioneer Thomas Helwys had written down the first document in the English language that argues for freedom of religion for all people. His brave and bold words echo in the corridors of history to this day: "Men's religion to God is between God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it; neither may the King be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure."
By observing Human Rights Day, Baptists join together in a strong voice to remind the world of our love for freedom for everyone and our commitment to justice everywhere.
Resources are available on the BWA website, www.bwanet.org.
Washington (BWA)--The Baptist World Alliance calls on Baptist churches around the world to make time during this season of celebration to reaffirm our commitment to human rights through the observance of Human Rights Day.
Human Rights Day is celebrated annually across the world on December 10 in honor of the United Nations General Assembly's adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the first global enunciation of that kind, on December 10, 1948.
For more than three decades, the BWA has encouraged Baptist churches to highlight this emphasis by promoting Human Rights Day. We urge all Baptist churches around the world to reaffirm this historical commitment by observing Human Rights Day on their days of worship on December 11 or 12.
2010 is the 62nd anniversary of the UDHR. The declaration has served as an ideal to be pursued by every nation, and has inspired the implementation of laws at national and international levels to protect the basic rights of individuals and peoples. A global movement for human rights has sprung from it, and has generated greater awareness not only of the intrinsic rights of every human being, but also of the existing violation of those rights in various places around the world.
Today, the principle of the sovereignty of the national state is understood vis-à-vis the respect for the basic rights of the individual. When those rights are not respected, the international community is urged to act through the mechanisms of international law and popular mobilization in favor of those whose rights have been violated irrespective of their nationality.
Human rights advocacy, however, is a continuous process and struggle. It is a constant battle against the evil of dehumanization and of disrespect for God's image in each person.
Theologically speaking, human rights spring from the theological understanding of human dignity, which is a gift from God to all human beings. Human rights are the socially constructed instruments through which human dignity is protected and promoted.
Human rights are reflected in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which includes the idea of the dignity of human beings created in God's image; the promotion in the Decalogue of respect for God and for the neighbor; the claim of the Hebrew prophets in defense of the poor, the widow, and the foreigner; and the incarnation of Jesus Christ and his call for the reconciliation of the world.
Furthermore, although we value the symbolism of the International Declaration of Human Rights, as Christians, we understand that declarations of human rights need to be fleshed out by men and women continuously committed to stand up for the oppressed.
Baptist theologian Thorwald Lorenzen stated, "The concern for human rights is intimately interwoven with the history and theology of Baptists." The origins of the Baptist vision were closely linked with the claim for religious liberty, for freedom of conscience, for freedom of opinion, and with freedom of assembly.
Already in 1612, Baptist pioneer Thomas Helwys had written down the first document in the English language that argues for freedom of religion for all people. His brave and bold words echo in the corridors of history to this day: "Men's religion to God is between God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it; neither may the King be judge between God and man. Let them be heretics, Turks, Jews or whatsoever, it appertains not to the earthly power to punish them in the least measure."
By observing Human Rights Day, Baptists join together in a strong voice to remind the world of our love for freedom for everyone and our commitment to justice everywhere.
Resources are available on the BWA website, www.bwanet.org.
Tags:
BWANews
A call for prayer for countries holding elections
Washington (BWA)-- The Baptist World Alliance calls for prayer regarding several presidential and general elections that have been held or that are planned in a number of countries.
Brazil in South America; Moldova in Europe; Egypt, Côte d'Ivoire, Tanzania and Guinea in Africa; Myanmar in Asia; and Haiti in the Caribbean, all held elections over the past several weeks and days. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is scheduled to hold a referendum on January 9 of next year to determine if the country should be divided between north and south or remain as one.
The BWA rejoices that in some of these elections, the votes were conducted peacefully and the will of the people was respected. The BWA also takes note of concerns raised by observers and participants that some national elections have been less than fair and were not free from fear. Electioneering, in some instances, caused great instability. Indeed, deaths have reportedly taken place during election campaigns and the conduct of elections themselves.
Baptists and other Christians in these countries are not unaffected by the instability and the violence that take place during election time. Some Baptists may have been victims. We would hate to think that Baptists have been perpetrators. What we do know is that Baptists, like other citizens, have, and do, exercise the franchise to vote. We strongly support the exercise of this franchise. We also urge election officials and political leaders to ensure that elections are conducted in the absence of fear, and that the published results reflect the will of the people.
Accordingly, we call upon Baptists everywhere to pray for countries that conduct and hold elections, remembering that, in many instances, their Christian brothers and sisters are involved as well. We especially ask prayers for Haiti as this country holds an election even while it grapples with the after effects of the massive earthquake that occurred on January 12, as well as with the recent outbreak of cholera that has killed more than 1,600 and affected thousands more. Yet, in the midst of this, Haiti had the fortitude to conduct elections on November 28 to elect a new president, senators and deputies.
We also ask for special prayers for Sudan as citizens in the south, which has thousands of Christians including Baptists, vote as to whether the south should secede, thus creating two new nations. We ask Baptists to pray that the government in Khartoum will respect the will of the people in this referendum planned for January 9, 2011.
As Baptists, we affirm our support of the cause of freedom, human rights and justice, including those inhered in the right of citizens to elect leaders of their own choosing.
Brazil in South America; Moldova in Europe; Egypt, Côte d'Ivoire, Tanzania and Guinea in Africa; Myanmar in Asia; and Haiti in the Caribbean, all held elections over the past several weeks and days. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is scheduled to hold a referendum on January 9 of next year to determine if the country should be divided between north and south or remain as one.
The BWA rejoices that in some of these elections, the votes were conducted peacefully and the will of the people was respected. The BWA also takes note of concerns raised by observers and participants that some national elections have been less than fair and were not free from fear. Electioneering, in some instances, caused great instability. Indeed, deaths have reportedly taken place during election campaigns and the conduct of elections themselves.
Baptists and other Christians in these countries are not unaffected by the instability and the violence that take place during election time. Some Baptists may have been victims. We would hate to think that Baptists have been perpetrators. What we do know is that Baptists, like other citizens, have, and do, exercise the franchise to vote. We strongly support the exercise of this franchise. We also urge election officials and political leaders to ensure that elections are conducted in the absence of fear, and that the published results reflect the will of the people.
Accordingly, we call upon Baptists everywhere to pray for countries that conduct and hold elections, remembering that, in many instances, their Christian brothers and sisters are involved as well. We especially ask prayers for Haiti as this country holds an election even while it grapples with the after effects of the massive earthquake that occurred on January 12, as well as with the recent outbreak of cholera that has killed more than 1,600 and affected thousands more. Yet, in the midst of this, Haiti had the fortitude to conduct elections on November 28 to elect a new president, senators and deputies.
We also ask for special prayers for Sudan as citizens in the south, which has thousands of Christians including Baptists, vote as to whether the south should secede, thus creating two new nations. We ask Baptists to pray that the government in Khartoum will respect the will of the people in this referendum planned for January 9, 2011.
As Baptists, we affirm our support of the cause of freedom, human rights and justice, including those inhered in the right of citizens to elect leaders of their own choosing.
Tags:
BWANews
A call for prayer for countries holding elections
Washington (BWA)-- The Baptist World Alliance calls for prayer regarding several presidential and general elections that have been held or that are planned in a number of countries.
Brazil in South America; Moldova in Europe; Egypt, Côte d'Ivoire, Tanzania and Guinea in Africa; Myanmar in Asia; and Haiti in the Caribbean, all held elections over the past several weeks and days. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is scheduled to hold a referendum on January 9 of next year to determine if the country should be divided between north and south or remain as one.
The BWA rejoices that in some of these elections, the votes were conducted peacefully and the will of the people was respected. The BWA also takes note of concerns raised by observers and participants that some national elections have been less than fair and were not free from fear. Electioneering, in some instances, caused great instability. Indeed, deaths have reportedly taken place during election campaigns and the conduct of elections themselves.
Baptists and other Christians in these countries are not unaffected by the instability and the violence that take place during election time. Some Baptists may have been victims. We would hate to think that Baptists have been perpetrators. What we do know is that Baptists, like other citizens, have, and do, exercise the franchise to vote. We strongly support the exercise of this franchise. We also urge election officials and political leaders to ensure that elections are conducted in the absence of fear, and that the published results reflect the will of the people.
Accordingly, we call upon Baptists everywhere to pray for countries that conduct and hold elections, remembering that, in many instances, their Christian brothers and sisters are involved as well. We especially ask prayers for Haiti as this country holds an election even while it grapples with the after effects of the massive earthquake that occurred on January 12, as well as with the recent outbreak of cholera that has killed more than 1,600 and affected thousands more. Yet, in the midst of this, Haiti had the fortitude to conduct elections on November 28 to elect a new president, senators and deputies.
We also ask for special prayers for Sudan as citizens in the south, which has thousands of Christians including Baptists, vote as to whether the south should secede, thus creating two new nations. We ask Baptists to pray that the government in Khartoum will respect the will of the people in this referendum planned for January 9, 2011.
As Baptists, we affirm our support of the cause of freedom, human rights and justice, including those inhered in the right of citizens to elect leaders of their own choosing.
Brazil in South America; Moldova in Europe; Egypt, Côte d'Ivoire, Tanzania and Guinea in Africa; Myanmar in Asia; and Haiti in the Caribbean, all held elections over the past several weeks and days. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is scheduled to hold a referendum on January 9 of next year to determine if the country should be divided between north and south or remain as one.
The BWA rejoices that in some of these elections, the votes were conducted peacefully and the will of the people was respected. The BWA also takes note of concerns raised by observers and participants that some national elections have been less than fair and were not free from fear. Electioneering, in some instances, caused great instability. Indeed, deaths have reportedly taken place during election campaigns and the conduct of elections themselves.
Baptists and other Christians in these countries are not unaffected by the instability and the violence that take place during election time. Some Baptists may have been victims. We would hate to think that Baptists have been perpetrators. What we do know is that Baptists, like other citizens, have, and do, exercise the franchise to vote. We strongly support the exercise of this franchise. We also urge election officials and political leaders to ensure that elections are conducted in the absence of fear, and that the published results reflect the will of the people.
Accordingly, we call upon Baptists everywhere to pray for countries that conduct and hold elections, remembering that, in many instances, their Christian brothers and sisters are involved as well. We especially ask prayers for Haiti as this country holds an election even while it grapples with the after effects of the massive earthquake that occurred on January 12, as well as with the recent outbreak of cholera that has killed more than 1,600 and affected thousands more. Yet, in the midst of this, Haiti had the fortitude to conduct elections on November 28 to elect a new president, senators and deputies.
We also ask for special prayers for Sudan as citizens in the south, which has thousands of Christians including Baptists, vote as to whether the south should secede, thus creating two new nations. We ask Baptists to pray that the government in Khartoum will respect the will of the people in this referendum planned for January 9, 2011.
As Baptists, we affirm our support of the cause of freedom, human rights and justice, including those inhered in the right of citizens to elect leaders of their own choosing.
Tags:
Suara Kenabian Papua
Why Papuan leaders went to the US Congress?
Budi Hernawan, Canberra | Thu, 10/07/2010 10:14 AM | Opinion
On Sept. 22, 2010, the US Congress Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the global environment held a public hearing on the issue of human rights abuse in Papua. It invited key witnesses from Papua, the US and the Netherlands. This marked an historical event that allowed Papuan representatives to officially express their concerns before the house of representatives of a foreign country.
The question is why Indonesia’s House of Representatives and/or the Indonesia’s People Consultative Assembly has never conducted such a hearing? And, additionally, why is it necessary for Papuan representatives to go to foreign soil to be able to express their views?
The hearings drew various interpretations on the importance of the event. Indonesian Ambassador to the US Dino Patti Djalal made a public comment that only three congressmen attended the hearing and thus, downplayed the potential outcomes of the hearings.
Whereas various groups of young Papuans staged rallies both inside and outside Papua to express their overwhelming support of the hearings. Given the long sense of injustice that Papuans feel has gone unnoticed by the international community, it is not surprising that many Papuans on the street dream that these hearings might significantly change their daily lives.
These hearings might be considered one outcome of the deep impasse between Papua and Jakarta following the mass demonstrations held in Jayapura on July 8-9, 2010. These protests centrally focused on the wishes of the Papuan community to “hand back” the Special Autonomy Law (SAL) implemented in 2001. It is important to make sense of this event through the divergent perspectives of the key actors and organizations involved, as these perspectives are reflective of broader attitudes towards establishing dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
First, various peace talk initiatives from Papua’s side have been established with key policy makers in Jakarta, beginning with FORERI in 1998. The response to this initiative was an official invitation from then president B.J. Habibie to 100 Papuan representatives to hold a dialogue with him and his cabinet.
This event took place on Feb. 26, 1999, at Merdeka Palace when Tom Beanal addressed the president expressing the Papuan aspirations to separate from Indonesia. President Habibie told Beanal to go home and think about his proposal. This event created a sense of euphoria among Papuans.
After this event, the central government seemed reluctant towards “dialogue” initiatives. Papuan civil society organizations, under the leadership of interfaith leaders, have promoted the idea of “Papua Land of Peace” since 2001, but this has not progressed, due to the lack of any significant response from key state institutions. Recently, the Papua Peace Network (Jaringan Damai Papua) established by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and Neles Tebay, promoted the idea of a dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. Similarly, there has been minimal positive response from the House, the assembly or the government.
Second, many victims of human rights abuse in Papua have continuously raised their causes to the attention of the Attorney General, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights and the Supreme Court at their own expense. The victims from Wasior (2001) and Wamena (2003), in particular, have been waiting for more than six years for their cases to be prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office, let alone other cases.
Third, since the enactment of SAL in December 2001, both Papua and Jakarta have failed to put their trust and effort into implementing the law. For instance, the administration of then president Megawati Soekarnoputri created three provinces that contradicted the spirit and the letter of SAL, while it took some years before Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration issued a decree to establish the Papua’s People Assembly (MRP).
On the Papuan side, the Papuan Customary Council (DAP) handed back the law in August 2005, and the MRP recently did the same thing because it believed that the special autonomy (Otsus) had failed to address Papuan grievances. Moreover, the Papuan Legislative Council (DPRP) has failed to legislate the operating regulations mandatory to implement SAL.
In these three major issues, the role of the House and the assembly remain absent. They fail to address the aspirations of its constituents with any policies that would have guided the government and the Papuans. Of course, various House commissions have come to and from Papua to talk to various key actors on the ground, but such visits have not been translated into policy output.
It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that the debate has so far focused on the polarized sides of the central government and the indigenous Papuans. Such an elusive presence is not novel to the House and the assembly. During the peace talks on Aceh, the House was not able to provide adequate political and legal support to the government to address the issue. Instead, it politicized the peace talk for the interests of political parties against the government and thus, jeopardized the peace talks. The assembly was simply silent at the time.
This is the time for the elected members of the House and/or the assembly, representing Papuan constituents, to hold a special session with key actors discussing Papuan issues, similar to the US hearing. However, one might raise the question of whether such an idea is realistic.
The media has frequently exposed how many House members are absent or simply fall asleep during debates in the House. It also publicizes how the House tends to spend public funding for their own working facilities or the so-called “comparative studies”.
If this remains the case, it should not be surprising that Papuan leaders will again appear in other international fora to raise their causes.
The writer, a former director of the Office for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia, is currently a PhD scholar at the Regulatory Institutions Network, the Australian National University.
Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/10/07/why-papuan-leaders-went-us-congress.html
On Sept. 22, 2010, the US Congress Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the global environment held a public hearing on the issue of human rights abuse in Papua. It invited key witnesses from Papua, the US and the Netherlands. This marked an historical event that allowed Papuan representatives to officially express their concerns before the house of representatives of a foreign country.
The question is why Indonesia’s House of Representatives and/or the Indonesia’s People Consultative Assembly has never conducted such a hearing? And, additionally, why is it necessary for Papuan representatives to go to foreign soil to be able to express their views?
The hearings drew various interpretations on the importance of the event. Indonesian Ambassador to the US Dino Patti Djalal made a public comment that only three congressmen attended the hearing and thus, downplayed the potential outcomes of the hearings.
Whereas various groups of young Papuans staged rallies both inside and outside Papua to express their overwhelming support of the hearings. Given the long sense of injustice that Papuans feel has gone unnoticed by the international community, it is not surprising that many Papuans on the street dream that these hearings might significantly change their daily lives.
These hearings might be considered one outcome of the deep impasse between Papua and Jakarta following the mass demonstrations held in Jayapura on July 8-9, 2010. These protests centrally focused on the wishes of the Papuan community to “hand back” the Special Autonomy Law (SAL) implemented in 2001. It is important to make sense of this event through the divergent perspectives of the key actors and organizations involved, as these perspectives are reflective of broader attitudes towards establishing dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
First, various peace talk initiatives from Papua’s side have been established with key policy makers in Jakarta, beginning with FORERI in 1998. The response to this initiative was an official invitation from then president B.J. Habibie to 100 Papuan representatives to hold a dialogue with him and his cabinet.
This event took place on Feb. 26, 1999, at Merdeka Palace when Tom Beanal addressed the president expressing the Papuan aspirations to separate from Indonesia. President Habibie told Beanal to go home and think about his proposal. This event created a sense of euphoria among Papuans.
After this event, the central government seemed reluctant towards “dialogue” initiatives. Papuan civil society organizations, under the leadership of interfaith leaders, have promoted the idea of “Papua Land of Peace” since 2001, but this has not progressed, due to the lack of any significant response from key state institutions. Recently, the Papua Peace Network (Jaringan Damai Papua) established by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and Neles Tebay, promoted the idea of a dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. Similarly, there has been minimal positive response from the House, the assembly or the government.
Second, many victims of human rights abuse in Papua have continuously raised their causes to the attention of the Attorney General, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights and the Supreme Court at their own expense. The victims from Wasior (2001) and Wamena (2003), in particular, have been waiting for more than six years for their cases to be prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office, let alone other cases.
Third, since the enactment of SAL in December 2001, both Papua and Jakarta have failed to put their trust and effort into implementing the law. For instance, the administration of then president Megawati Soekarnoputri created three provinces that contradicted the spirit and the letter of SAL, while it took some years before Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration issued a decree to establish the Papua’s People Assembly (MRP).
On the Papuan side, the Papuan Customary Council (DAP) handed back the law in August 2005, and the MRP recently did the same thing because it believed that the special autonomy (Otsus) had failed to address Papuan grievances. Moreover, the Papuan Legislative Council (DPRP) has failed to legislate the operating regulations mandatory to implement SAL.
In these three major issues, the role of the House and the assembly remain absent. They fail to address the aspirations of its constituents with any policies that would have guided the government and the Papuans. Of course, various House commissions have come to and from Papua to talk to various key actors on the ground, but such visits have not been translated into policy output.
It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that the debate has so far focused on the polarized sides of the central government and the indigenous Papuans. Such an elusive presence is not novel to the House and the assembly. During the peace talks on Aceh, the House was not able to provide adequate political and legal support to the government to address the issue. Instead, it politicized the peace talk for the interests of political parties against the government and thus, jeopardized the peace talks. The assembly was simply silent at the time.
This is the time for the elected members of the House and/or the assembly, representing Papuan constituents, to hold a special session with key actors discussing Papuan issues, similar to the US hearing. However, one might raise the question of whether such an idea is realistic.
The media has frequently exposed how many House members are absent or simply fall asleep during debates in the House. It also publicizes how the House tends to spend public funding for their own working facilities or the so-called “comparative studies”.
If this remains the case, it should not be surprising that Papuan leaders will again appear in other international fora to raise their causes.
The writer, a former director of the Office for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia, is currently a PhD scholar at the Regulatory Institutions Network, the Australian National University.
Source: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/10/07/why-papuan-leaders-went-us-congress.html
Tags:
Suara Kenabian Papua
Statement on the release of Aung San Suu Kyi
Washington (BWA)--The Baptist World Alliance takes note of the release of Myanmar opposition leader and Nobel Peace Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, from house arrest by the government of Myanmar.
The BWA rejoices at this new development, and expresses the hope that, as a symbolic gesture, the release of Ms. Suu Kyi will lead to greater freedoms for the people of Myanmar, including the release of the more than 2,000 political prisoners in the country. We also hope that the release of Ms. Suu Kyi will be the first step toward full democracy, respect for human rights, and national reconciliation for people of all ethnic groups.
In a 2006 resolution passed by the BWA General Council in Mexico City, the BWA recognized the historic Baptist links with Burrma/Myanmar, dating back to the work of Adoniram Judson and his colleagues in the nineteenth century. The BWA also affirmed its solidarity with the civil population of Myanmar as they suffered under hardships imposed by the military regime in power since 1962.
The resolution further urged that the United Nations "take appropriate action for the protection of the lives and rights of Myanmar citizens, including their right to religious freedom."
Noting the incarceration of Ms. Suu Kyi since 1990 and the victory of the NLD in the general election of 1990, the BWA resolution called on the Myanmar authorities to "lift the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the legally elected president in 1990."
Now that Ms. Suu Kyi has been given her freedom, the BWA urges the government of Myanmar to take further and urgent steps to expand the rights and freedoms of all its citizens, in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The BWA calls on all Baptists to continue to pray for the end of all human rights abuses in Myanmar.
Baptist World Alliance
Eron Henry, Associate Director of Communications
Neville Callam, General Secretary
Website: www.bwanet.org
Email: communications@bwanet.org
Phone: +1 703 790 8980
Fax: +1 703 893 5160
November 16, 2010
The BWA rejoices at this new development, and expresses the hope that, as a symbolic gesture, the release of Ms. Suu Kyi will lead to greater freedoms for the people of Myanmar, including the release of the more than 2,000 political prisoners in the country. We also hope that the release of Ms. Suu Kyi will be the first step toward full democracy, respect for human rights, and national reconciliation for people of all ethnic groups.
In a 2006 resolution passed by the BWA General Council in Mexico City, the BWA recognized the historic Baptist links with Burrma/Myanmar, dating back to the work of Adoniram Judson and his colleagues in the nineteenth century. The BWA also affirmed its solidarity with the civil population of Myanmar as they suffered under hardships imposed by the military regime in power since 1962.
The resolution further urged that the United Nations "take appropriate action for the protection of the lives and rights of Myanmar citizens, including their right to religious freedom."
Noting the incarceration of Ms. Suu Kyi since 1990 and the victory of the NLD in the general election of 1990, the BWA resolution called on the Myanmar authorities to "lift the house arrest of Aung San Suu Kyi, the legally elected president in 1990."
Now that Ms. Suu Kyi has been given her freedom, the BWA urges the government of Myanmar to take further and urgent steps to expand the rights and freedoms of all its citizens, in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The BWA calls on all Baptists to continue to pray for the end of all human rights abuses in Myanmar.
Baptist World Alliance
Eron Henry, Associate Director of Communications
Neville Callam, General Secretary
Website: www.bwanet.org
Email: communications@bwanet.org
Phone: +1 703 790 8980
Fax: +1 703 893 5160
November 16, 2010
Tags:
BWANews
Socratez Sofyan Yoman Mengaku Diincar Kopassus
JUBI --- Ketua Gereja Baptis Papua di Jayapura, Paua Pendeta Duma Socrates Sofyan Yoman, mengakui jika selama ini diincar Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus) Tentara Nasional Indonesia (TNI), yakni incaran tersebut dialaminya sejak tahun 2007 lalu.
“Saya pernah diundang untuk hadiri acara mereka tapi saya tidak pergi, kita sudah mengenal cara begini jadi diundang juga kami tidak pernah hadir., jadi seperti Theys Eluay saja yang diundang lalu dibunuh,” ujar Yoman saat di Konfirmasi JUBI di Jayapura, Rabu (10/11).
Menurutnya Yoman, kehadiran Kopasus di Papua untuk kepentingan ekonomi, keamanan dan politik. Selain itu, kopasus juga hadir untuk memperoteksi Sumber Daya Aalam dan transmigran. “Kami ini minta keadilan. Saya sebagai pemimpin gereja hanya akan bicara soal keadilan, dalam hal ini kami tidak akan mundur satu langkah pun.” Tegasnya.
Dari laporan Allan Nairn, Jurnalis Infestigasi asal Amerika Serikat yang dimuat dalam blog nya, seperti yang dilansir media Voice of Human Right, Rabu, menyebutkan Yoman juga tercatat sebagai salah satu incaran Kopassus di lokasi Kotaraja, Jayapura.
Melalui laporannya, Allan Nairn menyebutkan, operasi intelijen di Kotaraja mengindentifikasi aktivis gereja dan LSM sebagai “musuh”. Para aktivis gereja dan LSM dinilai memiliki potensi menyebarkan semangat antipemerintah Indonesia.
Dalam laporan “Satgas Ban-5/Papua Kopassus Pos I Kotaraja” tersebut Ketua Gereja Baptis Papua Pendeta Socrates Sofyan Yoman dan Ketua MRP Drs Agustinus Alue Alua menjadi salah seorang yang dimata-matai. Laporan yang disusun akhir tahun 2007 tersebut memuat sejumlah data lengkap soal kondisi sosial dan politik di wilayah Kotaraja, bahkan jumlah dana operasi intelijen. Kotaraja dipilih sebagai daerah yang diawasi, karena di wilayah ini terdapat kantor Majelis Rakyat Papua dan dekat dari kantor beberapa lembaga swadaya masyarakat.
Kodam XVII Cenderawasih meragukan adanya operasi intelijen Korps Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus) di Kotaraja, Jayapura, pada tahun 2007. Tanggapan tersebut disampaikan Kepala Penerangan Kodam XVII Cenderawasih Letkol Inf Susilo, menanggapai laporan jurnalis Amerika Serikat, Allan Nairn, tentang operasi intelijen Kopassus di Kotaraja.
Socrates membenarkan laporan Allan Airn. “Saya baru dapat kontak dari Allan beberapa hari lalu. Kami sedikit bahas soal operasi militer di Papua.” Dia berpendapat, bantahan yang disampaikan Kepala Penerangan Kodam XVII Cenderawasih Letkol Inf Susilo, kodam XVIII wajar – wajar saja. “Bagi saya bantahan yang disampaikan dari Kodam XVII Cendrawasih tersebut wajar dan patut dimaklumi,” ujarnya. (Musa Abubar)
http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/daily-news/headlines/9660-socratez-sofyan-yoman-mengaku-diincar-kopassus-
“Saya pernah diundang untuk hadiri acara mereka tapi saya tidak pergi, kita sudah mengenal cara begini jadi diundang juga kami tidak pernah hadir., jadi seperti Theys Eluay saja yang diundang lalu dibunuh,” ujar Yoman saat di Konfirmasi JUBI di Jayapura, Rabu (10/11).
Menurutnya Yoman, kehadiran Kopasus di Papua untuk kepentingan ekonomi, keamanan dan politik. Selain itu, kopasus juga hadir untuk memperoteksi Sumber Daya Aalam dan transmigran. “Kami ini minta keadilan. Saya sebagai pemimpin gereja hanya akan bicara soal keadilan, dalam hal ini kami tidak akan mundur satu langkah pun.” Tegasnya.
Dari laporan Allan Nairn, Jurnalis Infestigasi asal Amerika Serikat yang dimuat dalam blog nya, seperti yang dilansir media Voice of Human Right, Rabu, menyebutkan Yoman juga tercatat sebagai salah satu incaran Kopassus di lokasi Kotaraja, Jayapura.
Melalui laporannya, Allan Nairn menyebutkan, operasi intelijen di Kotaraja mengindentifikasi aktivis gereja dan LSM sebagai “musuh”. Para aktivis gereja dan LSM dinilai memiliki potensi menyebarkan semangat antipemerintah Indonesia.
Dalam laporan “Satgas Ban-5/Papua Kopassus Pos I Kotaraja” tersebut Ketua Gereja Baptis Papua Pendeta Socrates Sofyan Yoman dan Ketua MRP Drs Agustinus Alue Alua menjadi salah seorang yang dimata-matai. Laporan yang disusun akhir tahun 2007 tersebut memuat sejumlah data lengkap soal kondisi sosial dan politik di wilayah Kotaraja, bahkan jumlah dana operasi intelijen. Kotaraja dipilih sebagai daerah yang diawasi, karena di wilayah ini terdapat kantor Majelis Rakyat Papua dan dekat dari kantor beberapa lembaga swadaya masyarakat.
Kodam XVII Cenderawasih meragukan adanya operasi intelijen Korps Komando Pasukan Khusus (Kopassus) di Kotaraja, Jayapura, pada tahun 2007. Tanggapan tersebut disampaikan Kepala Penerangan Kodam XVII Cenderawasih Letkol Inf Susilo, menanggapai laporan jurnalis Amerika Serikat, Allan Nairn, tentang operasi intelijen Kopassus di Kotaraja.
Socrates membenarkan laporan Allan Airn. “Saya baru dapat kontak dari Allan beberapa hari lalu. Kami sedikit bahas soal operasi militer di Papua.” Dia berpendapat, bantahan yang disampaikan Kepala Penerangan Kodam XVII Cenderawasih Letkol Inf Susilo, kodam XVIII wajar – wajar saja. “Bagi saya bantahan yang disampaikan dari Kodam XVII Cendrawasih tersebut wajar dan patut dimaklumi,” ujarnya. (Musa Abubar)
http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/daily-news/headlines/9660-socratez-sofyan-yoman-mengaku-diincar-kopassus-
Tags:
Suara Kenabian Papua
John Djonga: Keberadaan Socratez Perlu Disyukuri
JUBI --- Aktivis HAM Papua, Pastor John Djonga mengatakan para aktivis yang menyuarakan tentang kebenaran dan keadilan bagi Papua perlu disyukuri, bukan malah dituding separatis.
“Sulit dicari orang seperti Socratez yang tidak takut berbicara tentang kebenaran,” katanya, Kamis(11/11). Pernyataan Pastor penerima Yap Thien Award 2009 ini menyusul adanya pengakuan Ketua Persekutuan Gereja-gereja Baptis Papua, Pendeta Duma Socratez Yoman bahwa dirinya diincar kopasus karena dituduh aktor separatis garis keras.
“Dalam kapasitasnya sebagai nabi ia memang bersuara untuk kebenaran. Pemerintah perlu mawas diri. Kalau orang seperti dia dihabiskan berarti Negara ini masih menganut sistem totaliter dan belum demokratis,” tegasnya.
Lanjut dia, sebenarnya banyak orang Papua yang mau bersuara untuk kebenaran, tetapi sulit karena masih takut dan trauma dengan berbagai tindakan kekerasan yang dilakukan aparatur Negara semisal TNI dan Polisi. Sebelumnya Socratez mengatakan bahwa dirinya sedang dicari komando pasukan khusus (Kopassus) karena “dituduh” sebagai pelaku yang getol mengkampanyekan Papua Merdeka. (Timo Marten.
)
http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/daily-news/jayapura/9682--john-djonga-keberadaan-socratez-perlu-disyukuri
“Sulit dicari orang seperti Socratez yang tidak takut berbicara tentang kebenaran,” katanya, Kamis(11/11). Pernyataan Pastor penerima Yap Thien Award 2009 ini menyusul adanya pengakuan Ketua Persekutuan Gereja-gereja Baptis Papua, Pendeta Duma Socratez Yoman bahwa dirinya diincar kopasus karena dituduh aktor separatis garis keras.
“Dalam kapasitasnya sebagai nabi ia memang bersuara untuk kebenaran. Pemerintah perlu mawas diri. Kalau orang seperti dia dihabiskan berarti Negara ini masih menganut sistem totaliter dan belum demokratis,” tegasnya.
Lanjut dia, sebenarnya banyak orang Papua yang mau bersuara untuk kebenaran, tetapi sulit karena masih takut dan trauma dengan berbagai tindakan kekerasan yang dilakukan aparatur Negara semisal TNI dan Polisi. Sebelumnya Socratez mengatakan bahwa dirinya sedang dicari komando pasukan khusus (Kopassus) karena “dituduh” sebagai pelaku yang getol mengkampanyekan Papua Merdeka. (Timo Marten.
)
http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/daily-news/jayapura/9682--john-djonga-keberadaan-socratez-perlu-disyukuri
Tags:
Suara Kenabian Papua
Isi Pidato Lengkap Obama di Kampus UI
Isi Pidato Lengkap Obama di Kampus UI
Di Indonesia, orang bebas memilih Tuhan yang ingin mereka sembah.
Rabu, 10 November 2010, 19:16 WIB
Bonardo Maulana Wahono
Obama UI (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
Saya senang akhirnya bisa berkunjung ke negeri ini dengan ditemani oleh Michelle. Tahun ini, kami telah dua kali gagal datang ke Indonesia. Namun, saya berkeras untuk menyambangi sebuah negeri yang amat bermakna bagi saya ini. Sayangnya, lawatan ini begitu singkat. Tapi saya berharap bisa datang lagi tahun depan pada saat Indonesia menjadi tuan rumah KTT Asia Timur.
Sebelum berbicara lebih jauh, saya ingin menyampaikan bahwa doa dan perhatian kami tertuju kepada para korban bencana tsunami dan gunung meletus baru-baru ini, khususnya bagi mereka yang kehilangan orang tercinta serta tempat tinggal. Amerika Serikat senantiasa ada di sisi pemerintah dan bangsa Indonesia dalam menghadapi bencana alam ini, dan kami akan dengan senang hati menolong semampunya. Sebagaimana tetangga yang mengulurkan tangan kepada tetangganya yang lain, dan banyak keluarga menampung orang-orang yang kehilangan rumah, saya tahu bahwa kekuatan dan ketahanan yang dimiliki oleh bangsa Indonesia akan sanggup mengangkat kalian keluar dari kesusahan ini.
Saya akan memulai dengan pernyataan sederhana: Indonesia bagian dari diri saya. Pertama kali saya bersentuhan dengan negeri ini adalah ketika ibu saya menikahi seorang pria Indonesia bernama Lolo Soetoro. Sebagai seorang bocah, saya terdampar di sebuah dunia yang berbeda. Namun, orang-orang di sini membuat saya merasa berada di rumah saya sendiri.
Pada masa itu, Jakarta terlihat begitu berbeda. Kota ini disesaki gedung-gedung yang tak begitu tinggi. Hotel Indonesia adalah salah satu bangunan tinggi. Kala itu, ada sebuah pusat perbelanjaan baru bernama Sarinah. Jumlah becak jauh lebih banyak daripada kendaraan bermotor. Dan jalan raya tersisih oleh jalan-jalan kampung tak beraspal.
Kami tinggal di Menteng Dalam, pada sebuah rumah mungil yang halamannya ditumbuhi sebatang pohon mangga. Saya belajar mencintai Indonesia pada saat menerbangkan layang-layang, berlarian di sepanjang pematang sawah, menangkap capung, dan jajan sate atau bakso dari pedagang keliling. Yang paling saya kenangkan adalah orang-orangnya: lelaki dan perempuan sepuh yang menyapa kami dengan senyumnya; anak-anak yang membuat seorang asing seperti saya jadi seperti tetangga; dan guru-guru yang mengajarkan keluasan dunia.
Karena Indonesia terdiri dari ribuan pulau, ratusan bahasa, dan orang-orang dari berbagai daerah dan suku, periode saya tinggal di negeri ini melapangkan jalan bagi saya menghargai kemanusiaan. Walau ayah tiri saya, sebagaimana orang Indonesia umumnya, dibesarkan sebagai seorang Muslim, ia sepenuhnya percaya bahwa semua agama patut dihargai secara setara. Dengan cara itu, ia mencerminkan semangat toleransi keberagamaan yang diabadikan dalam Undang-undang Dasar Indonesia yang tetap menjadi salah satu ciri negeri ini, yang tentunya memberi inspirasi.
Saya tinggal di kota ini selama bertahun-tahun -- sungguh suatu masa yang membentuk masa kecil saya; suatu masa yang menjadi saksi bagi kelahiran adik saya yang manis, Maya; dan suatu masa yang telah memesona ibu saya sehingga ia terus-menerus menghampiri Indonesia 20 tahun kemudian untuk tinggal, bekerja dan bepergian - mengejar hasratnya mendorong terbukanya kesempatan di pedesaan Indonesia khususnya bagi perempuan. Sepanjang hidupnya, negeri ini, beserta orang-orangnya, tetap tersimpan di hati ibu saya.
Begitu banyak yang berubah dalam empat dekade ini sejak saya kembali ke Hawaii. Jika kalian bertanya kepada saya - atau teman sekolah pada masa itu yang mengenal saya - saya yakin tak ada di antara kami yang mampu menyangka bahwa saya akan kembali ke negeri ini sebagai Presiden Amerika Serikat. Dan beberapa orang semestinya bisa meramalkan kisah luar biasa yang melibatkan Indonesia dalam empat dekade terakhir.
Jakarta yang dahulu saya kenal kini telah berkembang menjadi sebuah kota yang dijejali hampir sepuluh juta manusia, gedung-gedung pencakar langit yang membuat Hotel Indonesia terlihat kerdil, serta pusat-pusat kebudayaan dan perdagangan. Dulu saya dan kawan-kawan semasa kanak biasa berkejar-kejaran di lapangan ditemani kerbau dan kambing. Kini, generasi baru Indonesia termasuk dalam golongan paling terhubung dalam jagat komunikasi dunia melalui telepon genggam dan media sosial. Dulu, Indonesia sebagai bangsa yang masih muda berfokus ke dalam. Kini, bangsa ini memainkan peran penting di kawasan Asia-Pasifik dan ekonomi global.
Perubahan ini menjangkau ranah politik. Waktu ayah tiri saya masih kanak, ia menyaksikan ayah dan abangnya pergi berperang dan tewas demi kemerdekaan Indonesia. Saya lega bisa ada di sini tepat ketika Hari Pahlawan untuk mengingat jasa begitu banyak orang Indonesia yang rela berkorban demi negara yang besar ini.
Ketika saya pindah ke Jakarta pada tahun 1967, beberapa daerah di negeri ini baru saja mengalami penderitaan dan konflik yang hebat. Meski ayah tiri saya pernah menjadi seorang tentara, kekerasan dan pembantaian yang terjadi pada masa kekisruhan politik itu tak dapat saya pahami karena keluarga Indonesia dan teman-teman saya memilih bungkam. Di dalam rumah tangga saya, seperti keluarga Indonesia umumnya, peristiwa itu hadir secara sembunyi-sembunyi. Bangsa Indonesia merdeka, tapi rasa takut senantiasa mengikuti.
Pada masa-masa sesudahnya, Indonesia memilih jalurnya sendiri melalui tranformasi demokratis yang luar biasa - dari pemerintahan tangan besi, ke pemerintahan rakyat. Tahun-tahun belakangan, dunia menyaksikan dengan harapan dan rasa kagum usaha bangsa Indonesia merengkuh peralihan kekuasaan dengan jalan damai dan pemilihan kepala negara serta daerah secara langsung. Ketika demokrasi di negeri ini disimbolkan oleh terpilihnya Presiden dan wakil rakyat, ketika itu pula demokrasi dijalankan dan dipelihara melalui kontrol dan keseimbangan (check dan balance): Sebuah masyarakat madani, partai dan serikat politik yang madani; media dan warga negara penuh semangat yang telah yakin bahwa - di dalam Indonesia - tak ada lagi jalan memutar.
Bahkan ketika tanah tempat kemudaan saya pernah berlalu ini telah berubah banyak, hal-hal yang pernah saya pelajari untuk mencintai Indonesia - semangat toleransi yang tercantum dalam Undang-undang Dasar dan terpacak melalui masjid, gereja dan candi, pun tertanam dalam darah bangsa - masih mengalir di tubuh saya. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika - persatuan dalam keragaman. Falsafah itu merupakan pondasi yang dicontohkan Indonesia kepada dunia. Itu sebabnya Indonesia akan memainkan peran penting pada abad ke-21.
Hari ini, saya kembali ke Indonesia sebagai seorang sahabat sekaligus Presiden yang mengharapkan terjalinnya kerja sama erat antar kedua negara. Sebagai negara yang luas dan majemuk, berdamping-dampingan dengan Samudera Pasifik dan, di atas itu semua, demokrasi, Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia ditakdirkan bersama oleh kepentingan dan nilai-nilai yang sama.
Kemarin, Presiden Yudhoyono dan saya menyetujui Kerja Sama Komprehensif yang baru antara Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia. Pemerintahan kedua negara mempererat hubungan di berbagai bidang dan, yang juga penting, memperkuat hubungan antar bangsa. Kerja sama ini tentunya berdasar atas rasa saling membutuhkan dan saling menghormati.
Dengan sisa waktu yang saya miliki hari ini, saya ingin berbagi tentang mengapa kisah yang baru saja saya utarakan begitu penting bagi Amerika Serikat dan dunia. Saya ingin menitikberatkan pembahasan pada tiga hal yang saling berkait-erat serta mendasar bagi kemajuan manusia: Pembangunan, demokrasi dan agama.
Pertama, persahabatan yang terjalin antara Amerika Serikat dan Indonesia dapat memajukan pembangunan yang saling menguntungkan.
Ketika saya hidup di Indonesia, sulit membayangkan sebuah masa depan dimana kemakmuran yang dirasakan oleh banyak keluarga di Chicago dan Jakarta akan berhubungan. Kini, kita ada pada zaman ekonomi global. Bangsa Indonesia telah merasakan risiko dan harapan dari globalisasi: Mulai dari krisis ekonomi Asia yang terjadi pada akhir tahun 1990, dan jutaan orang yang berhasil bangkit dari kemiskinan. Artinya, dan yang akhirnya kita pelajari dari krisis ekonomi barusan, masing-masing dari kita memiliki sumbangsih pada keberhasilan yang diraih pihak lain.
Amerika memiliki sumbangsih terhadap sebagian dari Indonesia yang merasakan kemakmuran, karena tumbuhnya kelas menengah di sini juga berarti timbulnya pasar bagi produk-produk kami seperti juga Amerika merupakan pasar bagi Indonesia. Karena itu, kami menanamkan modal lebih banyak di Indonesia. Ekspor dari Amerika telah naik 50 persen, dan kami membuka pintu bagi pengusaha Amerika dan Indonesia untuk saling berhubungan.
Amerika memiliki sumbangsih terhadap Indonesia, yang memainkan peranannya dalam perekonomian global. Hari-hari ketika tujuh atau delapan negara membentuk kelompok dan menentukan arah perekonomian dunia telah berlalu. Karena itulah saat ini G-20 telah menjadi pusat kerja sama ekonomi internasional: Hal yang memungkinkan negeri seperti Indonesia memiliki suara lebih nyaring dan tanggung jawab lebih besar. Melalui kepemimpinan Indonesia di dalam kelompok G-20 yang memerangi korupsi, negeri ini harus ada di depan pada panggung dunia dengan memberikan contoh baik dalam mempraktikkan transparansi dan akuntabilitas.
Amerika memiliki sumbangsih terhadap Indonesia yang mengejar pembangunan berkelanjutan. Karena cara kita bertumbuh akan mempengaruhi kualitas hidup kita serta kesejahteraan planet yang kita diami. Karena itulah kita mengembangkan teknologi untuk menghasilkan energi bersih yang mampu menopang industri dan menjaga sumber daya alam Indonesia. Amerika menyambut kepemimpinan negeri anda dalam usaha global memerangi perubahan iklim.
Di atas itu semua, Amerika memiliki sumbangsih terhadap keberhasilan manusia Indonesia. Kita harus membangun jembatan yang menghubungkan kedua bangsa karena kita akan berbagi jaminan dan kemakmuran di masa nanti. Itu yang kini sedang kita rintis: Meningkatkan kolaborasi antara ilmuwan dan peneliti kita serta bekerja sama memelihara kewirausahaan. Saya pribadi puas karena kita berhasil meningkatkan jumlah pelajar Amerika dan Indonesia yang meneruskan pendidikan di universitas-universitas yang ada pada kedua negara.
Baru saja saya bicarakan masalah-masalah penting dalam kehidupan kita. Lagipula, pembangunan tak melulu hanya berhubungan dengan tingkat pertumbuhan dan angka-angka dalam neraca. Pembangunan juga menyangkut bagaimana seorang anak mampu mempelajari keahlian yang mereka butuhkan untuk menghadapi dunia yang selalu berubah. Pembangunan berkaitan dengan bagaimana gagasan baik dapat diwujudkan dan tak tercemar dengan korupsi. Pembangunan juga berhubungan dengan bagaiman kekuatan-kekuatan yang telah mengubah Jakarta yang pernah saya kenal - teknologi, perdagangan, arus keluar-masuk orang dan barang - mampu membuat hidup orang jadi lebih baik: Kehidupan uang ditandai dengan martabat dan kesempatan.
Pembangunan semacam itu tak mampu dipisahkan dari demokrasi.
Kini, kita sering mendengar bahwa demokrasi menghalangi pertumbuhan ekonomi. Ini bukanlah alasan baru. Orang akan berkata, khususnya di tengah perubahan dan kondisi ekonomi tak menentu, bahwa pembangunan akan lebih mudah dijalankan dengan mengorbankan hak asasi manusia. Tapi, saya tak melihat itu di India, juga Indonesia. Apa yang kalian telah raih menunjukkan bahwa demokrasi dan pembangunan saling menopang.
Seperti laiknya demokrasi di negara lain, halangan selalu merintangi. Amerika juga mengalaminya. Undang-undang Dasar yang kami miliki menyatakan upaya untuk menempa "penyatuan lebih sempurna." Kami telah menempuh perjalanan untuk meraih itu. Kami melewati Perang Saudara dan berjuang menegakkan hak-hak pribadi warga negara Amerika Serikat. Usaha itu kemudian membuat kami lebih kuat dan sejahtera serta menjadi sebuah masyarakat yang lebih adil dan bebas.
Seperti negara lain yang bangkit dari pemerintahan kolonial di abad lalu, Indonesia berjuang dan berkorban demi memiliki hak menentukan nasib sendiri. Itulah makna Hari Pahlawan sesungguhnya: Sebuah Indonesia yang dimiliki oleh bangsa Indonesia. Tapi, secara bersamaan, kemerdekaan yang telah didapatkan itu tak pula berarti menggantikan kekuatan kolonial dengan kekuatan pemerintahan lokal.
Tentunya, demokrasi morat-marit. Tak semua pihak menyukai hasil akhir suatu pemilihan umum. Kalian semua mengalami segala suka dan duka. Namun, perjalanan itu patut dilewati karena tak hanya melulu mengenai surat suara. Butuh lembaga yang kuat untuk mengontrol pemusatan kekuatan. Butuh pasar terbuka untuk memungkinkan banyak individu maju. Butuh pers dan sistem peradilan yang independen. Butuh masyarakat terbuka dan warga negara yang aktif untuk melawan ketimpangan dan ketidakadilan.
Yang demikian adalah kekuatan yang akan mendorong Indonesia. Korupsi harus dilawan. Komitmen pada keterbukaan, yang memungkinkan tiap warga memiliki sumbangsih terhadap pemerintahannya, mesti ada. Kepercayaan bahwa kemerdekaan yang telah direbut merupakan hal yang tetap menyatukan negeri ini harus ditumbuhkan.
Itu adalah pesan dari manusia Indonesia yang telah memajukan kisah demokratis ini: Dari mereka yang berperang di Surabaya 55 tahun lampau; kepada para mahasiswa yang tergabung dalam demonstrasi tahun 1990an; kepada para pemimpin yang telah berhasil menjalani transisi kekuasaan secara damai pada awal abad ini. Karena, akhirnya, para warga negara memiliki hak untuk menyatukan Nusantara, yang membentang sepanjang Sabang dan Merauke: Sebuah penegasan bahwa setiap bayi yang lahir di negeri ini wajib diperlakukan dengan adil meski mereka berketurunan Jawa, Aceh, Bali atau Papua.
Upaya-upaya semacam itu ditunjukkan Indonesia kepada dunia. Negeri ini berinisiatif membentuk Forum Demokrasi Bali, sebuah forum bagi negara-negara untuk berbagi pengalaman dalam menjaga demokrasi. Indonesia juga telah berusaha menekan ASEAN memperhatikan hak asasi manusia. Bangsa-bangsa di Asia Tenggara berhak menentukan takdirnya sendiri dan Amerika Serikat akan mendukung upaya itu. Namun, warga Asia Tenggara harus pula memiliki hak menentukan nasib mereka sendiri. Itu sebabnya kami mengutuk pemilihan umum di Burma, yang jauh dari kebebasan maupun keadilan. Itu sebabnya kami menyokong masyarakat madani yang penuh semangat di negeri ini. Tidak ada alasan untuk mencegah penegakan hak asasi manusia di manapun.
Itulah pembangunan dan demokrasi - gagasan bahwa ada nilai-nilai yang sifatnya universal. Kemakmuran tanpa kemerdekaan adalah bentuk lain dari kemiskinan. Manusia memiliki cita-cita bersama: Kebebasan untuk tahu bahwa pemimpinmu bertanggung jawab atasmu dan bahwa anda takkan dibui bila memiliki pandangan yang berseberangan dengannya. Anda memiliki kesempatan belajar dan bekerja dengan kemuliaan. Anda bebas menjalankan kepercayaan yang anda anut tanpa takut dikucilkan.
Agama merupakan topik terakhir yang akan saya bicarakan hari ini dan, seperti layaknya demokrasi dan pembangunan, merupakan hal mendasar bagi kisah Indonesia.
Seperti negara Asia lain yang saya kunjungi, Indonesia tenggelam dalam spiritualitas: Sebuah tempat manusia menyembah Tuhan dengan berbagai cara. Sejalan dengan keberagamannya, Indonesia juga negara dengan jumlah penduduk Muslim terbesar di dunia - hal yang telah saya ketahui sejak kecil ketika mendengar lantunan azan di Jakarta.
Suatu Individu tak hanya didefinisikan berdasarkan kepercayaannya. Begitu pula Indonesia. Negeri ini tidak hanya ditetapkan berdasarkan penduduk Muslimnya. Kita juga tahu bahwa hubungan antara Amerika Serikat dan masyarakat Islam telah lama rusak. Sebagai Presiden, saya mendahulukan perbaikan atas hubungan yang rusak ini. Salah satu upaya itu adalah kunjungan ke Kairo pada bulan Juni yang lalu dan keinginan untuk memulai lagi hubungan yang baru antara Amerika Serikat dan umat Islam sedunia.
Waktu itu saya bilang, dan akan saya ulangi sekarang, bahwa tak ada satu pidato pun yang dapat menghapuskan tahun-tahun penuh ketidakpercayaan. Tapi waktu itu saya percaya, demikian pula sekarang, bahwa kita punya pilihan. Kita bisa memilih untuk bisa menetapkan diri kita berdasarkan perbedaan-perbedaan yang kita miliki dan menyerah pada masa depan yang penuh kecurigaan dan ketidakpercayaan. Atau kita bisa memilih untuk bekerja keras demi memelihara persamaan hak. Saya berjanji, apapun rintangannya, Amerika Serikat akan berkomitmen memajukan manusia. Itulah kami. Kami telah melakukannya. Kami akan terus menjalankannya.
Kami tahu baik masalah-masalah yang menyebabkan adanya tekanan bertahun-tahun ini. Kami telah menciptakan kemajuan setelah 17 bulan pemerintahan. Tapi, pekerjaan belum selesai.
Banyak warga tak berdosa di Amerika, Indonesia dan belahan dunia lainnya masih menjadi target kaum ekstremis. Saya telah menegaskan bahwa Amerika tidak sedang memerangi, dan takkan terlibat perang dengan, Islam. Namun, kita semua harus menghancurkan Al-Qaeda dan antek-anteknya. Siapapun yang ingin membangun tak boleh bekerja sama dengan teroris. Ini bukanlah tugas Amerika sendiri. Indonesia telah berhasil memerangi para teroris dan aliran garis keras.
Di Afghanistan, kami terus bekerja bersama beberapa negara untuk membantu pemerintah Afghanistan meretas masa depannya. Kepentingan kami di sana adalah memungkinkan terwujudnya perdamaian yang pada akhirnya mampu memunculkan harapan bagi negeri itu.
Kami juga telah mencatat kemajuan dalam salah satu komitmen utama kami: Upaya mengakhiri perang di Irak. 100 ribu tentara Amerika telah meninggalkan negeri itu. Penduduk Irak telah memiliki tanggung jawab penuh atas keamanan mereka. Kami terus mendukung Irak dalam prosesnya membentuk pemerintahan yang inklusif. Kami juga akan memulangkan seluruh tentara AS.
Di Timur Tengah, kami telah menghadapi permulaan yang gagal serta halangan. Namun, kami juga terus menjaga upaya merengkuh perdamaian. Bangsa Israel dan Palestina memulai kembali perundingan. Namun, masih ada masalah besar di sana. Ilusi bahwa kedamaian dan keamanan akan datang dengan mudah tak boleh muncul. Tapi, singkirkanlah keragu-raguan: Kami takkan menyia-nyiakan kesempatan untuk memperoleh hasil yang adil bagi semua pihak yang bertikai: Dua negara, Israel dan Palestina, hidup berdampingan secara damai dan sentosa.
Penyelesaian atas masalah-masalah itu memiliki taruhan yang besar. Dunia yang kita huni telah menjadi kian kecil. Sementara kekuatan-kekuatan yang menghubungkan kita membuka kesempatan, kekuatan-kekuatan itu juga menyokong pihak yang ingin menghambat kemajuan. Sebuah bom di tengah pasar melumpuhkan kegiatan jual-beli. Sepotong gosip dapat mengaburkan kebenaran dan memicu kekerasan di tengah masyarakat yang sebelumnya hidup rukun. Di zaman ini, ketika perubahan begitu cepat dan berbagai budaya berbenturan, apa yang kita bagikan sebagai manusia dapat musnah.
Saya percaya bahwa sejarah Indonesia dan Amerika mampu memberikan kita harapan. Kisah keduanya tertulis dalam semboyan yang dimiliki oleh negara kita masing-masing. E pluribus unum - beragam tapi bersatu. Bhinneka Tunggal Ika - persatuan dalam keberagaman. Kita dua bangsa yang mengambil jalan masing-masing. Namun kedua negara ini menunjukkan bahwa ratusan juta orang yang memiliki kepercayaan berbeda mampu bersatu dengan merdeka di bawah satu bendera. Dan kita sekarang membangun kemanusiaan melalui anak-anak muda yang akan melalui pendidikan di sekolah masing-masing; melalui wirausahawan yang saling berhubungan demi meraih kemakmuran; dan melalui upaya kita memeluk nilai-nilai demokrasi serta cita-cita manusiawi.
Tadi saya mampir ke Masjid Istiqlal. Rumah ibadah itu masih dalam pengerjaan ketika saya tinggal di Jakarta. Saya mengagumi menaranya yang menjulang, kubah yang megah, serta tempatnya yang lapang. Namun, nama serta sejarahnya juga menjadi saksi kebesaran Indonesia. Istiqlal maknanya kemerdekaan. Bangunan itu sebagiannya merupakan wasiat perjuangan sebuah bangsa menuju kemerdekaan. Terlebih lagi, masjid itu dibangun oleh seorang arsitek Kristen.
Itulah semangat Indonesia. Itulah pesan yang diimbuhkan dalam Pancasila. Di sebuah negeri kepulauan yang berisi beberapa ciptaan Tuhan yang paling elok, pulau-pulau yang menyembul dari samudera, orang bebas memilih Tuhan yang ingin mereka sembah. Islam berkembang, begitu pula ajaran lain. Pembangunan diperkuat oleh demokrasi yang sedang berkembang. Tradisi purba terpelihara meski sebuah kekuatan sedang lahir.
Tapi bukan berarti Indonesia negeri sempurna. Tak ada satu negeri pun yang bisa. Tapi di sini ras, wilayah, dan agama yang berbeda mampu dijembatani. Sebagai seorang bocah yang berasal dari suatu ras dan datang dari sebuah negeri yang jauh, saya menemukan semangat untuk melihat diri sebagai seorang individu dalam ucapan "Selamat Datang". Sebagai seorang pemeluk Kristiani yang mengunjungi masjid, saya mengutip pendapat seseorang yang ditanyai tentang kunjungan saya: "Orang Islam juga boleh masuk gereja. Kita semua adalah umat Tuhan."
Ungkapan itu mencetuskan gagasan bahwa sifat ketuhanan ada di dalam diri kita. Kita tak boleh menyerah pada penyangkalan atau sinisisme atau keputusasaan. Kisah yang melibatkan Indonesia dan Amerika menunjukkan kepada kita bahwa sejarah mengikuti perkembangan manusia; bahwa persatuan lebih kuat daripada perpecahan; dan bahwa warga dunia dapat hidup dengan damai. Semoga kedua negeri kita dapat terus bekerja sama, dengan kepercayaan dan determinasi, menyebarkan kebenaran-kebenaran ini dengan seluruh manusia.
http://nasional.vivanews.com/news/read/188098-isi-lengkap-pidato-obama
Tags:
OBAMA US PRESIDENT
