1) Freeport Indonesia Says Output Almost
Normal, Plans Stake Sale
2)
Papua police hand over Labora Sitorus’ dossier to prosecutors
3) Parliament challenges UK Government over rights abuses in West
Papua
4)
Beyond the boats lies the rising regional power of Indonesia
-------------------------------------------------
1) Freeport Indonesia Says Output Almost Normal, Plans Stake Sale
In this photograph taken on May 24, 2013 rescue and safety officials from Freeport-McMoRan’s US gold and copper mining company accompanied by a representative from Indonesia’s Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources inspect the accident site at Big Gossan area at the Grasberg complex following rescue operations where 28 workers were killed and 10 rescued. (AFP Photo/ Tjahjo Eranius)
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. said production and shipments from Indonesia have almost reached normal levels, after work at the world’s second-largest copper mine was halted following a May accident.
Underground operations at its Grasberg mine may need more time to reach normal, Rozik B. Soetjipto, president director of unit PT Freeport Indonesia, told reporters in Jakarta Friday, without providing details of output and sales volumes.
The underground stoppage was reducing daily output by about 1 million pounds of copper and 1,000 ounces of gold, the company said in a statement on June 24. Phoenix-based Freeport has yet to lift a force majeure declared on June 12, which allows it to miss deliveries, after resuming some concentrate shipments earlier this month.
Indonesia ordered the company to suspend work at the mine after a tunnel collapse on May 14 killed 28 workers. The suspension of mining at Grasberg affected production by about 125 million pounds of copper and 125,000 ounces of gold in the second quarter, the company said in a statement on July 23.
The open pit mine has a full production rate of 140,000 tons of ore per day, Soetjipto said in May. The deposit, located in Papua province, normally produces 220,000 tons of ore a day.
Market Sale Freeport Indonesia, which said last year the Papua administration was interested in buying a 9.4 percent stake in the company, will sell that to the government and also another 5 percent stake to investors, Industry Minister Mohamad S. Hidayat told reporters in Jakarta Friday after a meeting with Soetjipto.
Indonesia already owns a 9.4 percent stake in the company. The planned divestment comes after Indonesia last year limited foreign companies from owning more than 49 percent of some mines after 10 years of production. In a separate ruling last year, the government said it will ban raw mineral exports from 2014 and required miners to process metal ores domestically.
Freeport Indonesia is now in discussions with three companies to supply copper concentrate for local smelting, Soetjipto said. The company, which has a 25 percent stake in Indonesia’s only existing copper smelter PT Smelting, is also conducting a feasibility study on a processing facility, he said. This study should be done within six months, Hidayat said.
Bloomberg
------------------------------------------------------------
2) Papua police hand over Labora Sitorus’ dossier to prosecutors
Yuliasri Perdani and Nethy Dharma Somba, The Jakarta Post, Jayapura | Archipelago | Fri, July 26 2013, 11:01 PM
The Papuan Police have handed over the dossier on Chief Brig. Labora Sitorus to the Papua Prosecutors’ office for processing. Labora has been accused of engaging in illegal logging, money laundering and
fuel smuggling.
fuel smuggling.
“We handed over the dossier to the prosecutors today,” said Papua Police spokesman Sr. Comr. I Gede Sumerta Jaya on Friday.
Dwi Hartanta of the Papua Prosecutor’s office said a team of prosecutors had been assigned to check the dossier. He said the team had been given a week to do the checking and if they spotted any weaknesses then they would likely return the dossier to the police for correction or for additional material.
Chief Brig. Labora Sitorus, not Adj. First Insp. Labora Sitorus as mentioned in previous stories, faces a maximum punishment of seven years imprisonment if found guilty.
The Labora Sitorus’ case originated from his financial report first released by the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Center (PPATK). PPATK had spotted accumulative financial transactions totaling more than Rp 1.5 trillion (US$146 million), not in keeping with Labora’s role as a police officer.
PPATK handed over the report to the National Police headquarters, which directly formed a team to investigate the suspicious data. Labora was then arrested on May 20 on multiple charges.(dic)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3) Parliament challenges UK Government over rights abuses in West Papua
TAPOL
Members of the House of Lords held a debate about West Papua on 24 July in which they raised serious concerns about the human rights situation and called on the British government to take a stronger stand.
Lord Harries, who initiated the debate, noted the alarming pattern of ongoing political arrests in West Papua, citing evidence collected by TAPOL, and challenged the UK government about its funding of Special Detachment 88, the elite counter-terror squad which has allegedly been used in the arrest, torture and shooting of political activists in the Papua provinces. He questioned whether the training provided by the UK and others was doing anything to improve the human rights record of the unit.
Particular concern was expressed about access to West Papua. Lord Hannay called the Indonesian government’s policy of restricting access for foreign journalists and NGOs “misguided,” adding that “where secrecy prevails, rumour and allegations flourish.” Lord Avebury suggested “The situation in West Papua is almost certainly a lot worse even than we are able to describe, because of the barriers to access”.
Lord Harries criticised the Special Autonomy law as a “total failure” which “fails to address the political aspiration of the Papuan people,” and called on the UK to request an inquiry into the Act of Free Choice and support an internationally-monitored referendum.
Lord Kilclooney discussed the history of Papua, which he described as an occupation, stating “It is one of the worst tragedies I have come across. And coming from Ireland I know what tragedy is.” He added, “As we know from Ireland, there can be a security solution or a political solution. The way forward must be by political dialogue… beginning with the church leaders.”
Lord Avebury noted the outstanding request of the Papuan people for self-determination, and called on the UK government to “Invite President SBY to visit the UK in September 2014 [for the Scottish referendum on independence], to see how we deal with requests for self-determination.” Lord Hannay added that the Indonesian government should demonstrate respect for the culture of Papuans, and that any attempt to homogenise or encourage migration into Papua will bring tensions.
The government response was given by Baroness Warsi, Senior Minister of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. In responding to the concerns raised, Baroness Warsi noted the high level of concern about freedom of expression during the debate, and agreed that freedom of expression in West Papua “is too often stifled.” She also noted with concern the “lengthy jail sentences for peaceful protest” and stated that she “fervently hoped” that the visit of the special rapporteur on Freedom of Expression takes place soon. In conclusion, Baroness Warsi echoed statements of all those who spoke in the debate, that all those with a stake in Papua’s future need constructively to engage in peaceful dialogue.
Watch the debate (start at 18:53:00)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/07/26/beyond-boats-lies-rising-regional-power-indonesia.html
Alan Oxley, London | Opinion | Fri, July 26 2013, 10:59 AM
4) Beyond the boats lies the rising regional power of Indonesia
There was bafflement in Jakarta about what Prime Minister Kevin Rudd intended when he suggested that the Coalition’s plan to turn back asylum-seeker boats might cause military conflict with Indonesia, raising the 1960s-era Konfrontasi campaign.
The confusion underlines how we will have to change the way we deal with Indonesia if we are to have an effective relationship.
Rudd’s link with the historical Konfrontasi – when Australia joined British and Malaysian troops to stop Indonesian military incursions into newly independent Malaysia — is not obvious.
But the mention will have an effect. Indonesian culture is heavy with double meanings and elliptical and indirect messaging. Some in the country are bound to draw convoluted conclusions about what Rudd, who visited Jakarta earlier this month, meant; perhaps even an indirect threat to enter Indonesian waters to return asylum boats.
Indonesia’s systems of governance do not support quick decisions on complicated matters. Authority is decentralised and has been for centuries. Indonesia has 34 provinces — three with more than 30 million people and six with more than 7 million.
Agreement with an Indonesian government to manage people-smugglers will require a long and protracted process of consultation. It should be led by a minister supported by a specific inter-agency body.
Any government which promises a quick solution with Indonesia on people-smuggling is simply asking for trouble.
We really didn’t need the Gillard government’s Asian Century Strategy to tell us China was a big and growing economy. It has been the giant of Asia for a millennium. But at least the exercise drew attention to the importance of Indonesia. The federal opposition says Indonesia will be their top diplomatic priority if they form government. They are right.
Indonesia is set to present Australia with an entirely new regional picture: a militarily powerful neighbour straddling important northern sea lanes. In 2011, Indonesia’s GDP was about US$860 billion; Australia’s about US$1.3 trillion.
If Indonesia’s economy continues to expand twice the rate of Australia’s (which has been the pattern of the past 20 years) Indonesia’s GDP will be bigger than Australia’s in two decades. It will have as much to spend on defence equipment as Australia does now.
To build a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with Indonesia, two key things need to be understood. First, Indonesia has “big-country syndrome”. Second, we need to shape our policy of engagement around common interest, not what we think is best for Indonesia.
Any big nation with more than 200 million people thinks what happens at home is more important than what happens outside. And all large countries naturally think they are more important than smaller ones. Generally that’s true.
We should not believe Australia ranks highly in the consciousness of Indonesian people or government officials. For Indonesia, the ASEAN grouping, China, the US and Mecca rank more highly; Malaysia and Singapore figure when Indonesian maids and guest workers are maltreated there.
Nor should we think Indonesians have long memories. As Greg Moriarty, Australia’s ambassador in Jakarta pointed out to an Asia Link audience in Melbourne last year, Indonesia has a rapidly growing and young population. Australia cannot afford to assume that building government-to-government links, as important as they are, will be enough.
The reality is that government in Indonesia has less influence over what happens than in most countries, and certainly over the thinking of a young and rapidly growing population.
While Indonesia is now one of the world’s biggest democracies, rule of law is inconstant. There are Australian businessmen in Indonesia now under arrest because they fell foul of their business partners. This is the business environment. Success depends on getting along with business. It will be the same with diplomacy. Riding with the hiccups will be part of the process.
Australia has to base its relationship with Indonesia on common interest, not what has become the view among Western governments about how poorer countries should develop. OECD aid donors now direct aid to root out corruption, strengthen rule of law, improve human rights, improve gender balance, increase environmental protection and make societies more equal. But they don’t have large developing countries as neighbours. Yet these goals now also influence Australia’s aid agenda.
Some have called for Australia to cut its aid unless Jakarta collaborates in stopping the boats. Nothing could better demonstrate to Indonesians that aid is being used to advance Australian interests, not Indonesia’s people. The response, anyway, in Jakarta would be “as you wish”.
Indonesia has already had a taste of Australian trade policy being used for political ends. Following pressure from activists, live cattle exports were banned, and costly import barriers were imposed to prove that imported timber products from Indonesia and other developing countries were legal.
Despite expert advice these measures would not work and cause resentment in Jakarta, Canberra let the activists have their way. There is no way we can work collaboratively on people-smuggling while that remains the case.
The writer is the principal of public policy consultancy ITS Global.
The confusion underlines how we will have to change the way we deal with Indonesia if we are to have an effective relationship.
Rudd’s link with the historical Konfrontasi – when Australia joined British and Malaysian troops to stop Indonesian military incursions into newly independent Malaysia — is not obvious.
But the mention will have an effect. Indonesian culture is heavy with double meanings and elliptical and indirect messaging. Some in the country are bound to draw convoluted conclusions about what Rudd, who visited Jakarta earlier this month, meant; perhaps even an indirect threat to enter Indonesian waters to return asylum boats.
Indonesia’s systems of governance do not support quick decisions on complicated matters. Authority is decentralised and has been for centuries. Indonesia has 34 provinces — three with more than 30 million people and six with more than 7 million.
Agreement with an Indonesian government to manage people-smugglers will require a long and protracted process of consultation. It should be led by a minister supported by a specific inter-agency body.
Any government which promises a quick solution with Indonesia on people-smuggling is simply asking for trouble.
We really didn’t need the Gillard government’s Asian Century Strategy to tell us China was a big and growing economy. It has been the giant of Asia for a millennium. But at least the exercise drew attention to the importance of Indonesia. The federal opposition says Indonesia will be their top diplomatic priority if they form government. They are right.
Indonesia is set to present Australia with an entirely new regional picture: a militarily powerful neighbour straddling important northern sea lanes. In 2011, Indonesia’s GDP was about US$860 billion; Australia’s about US$1.3 trillion.
If Indonesia’s economy continues to expand twice the rate of Australia’s (which has been the pattern of the past 20 years) Indonesia’s GDP will be bigger than Australia’s in two decades. It will have as much to spend on defence equipment as Australia does now.
To build a constructive and mutually beneficial relationship with Indonesia, two key things need to be understood. First, Indonesia has “big-country syndrome”. Second, we need to shape our policy of engagement around common interest, not what we think is best for Indonesia.
Any big nation with more than 200 million people thinks what happens at home is more important than what happens outside. And all large countries naturally think they are more important than smaller ones. Generally that’s true.
We should not believe Australia ranks highly in the consciousness of Indonesian people or government officials. For Indonesia, the ASEAN grouping, China, the US and Mecca rank more highly; Malaysia and Singapore figure when Indonesian maids and guest workers are maltreated there.
Nor should we think Indonesians have long memories. As Greg Moriarty, Australia’s ambassador in Jakarta pointed out to an Asia Link audience in Melbourne last year, Indonesia has a rapidly growing and young population. Australia cannot afford to assume that building government-to-government links, as important as they are, will be enough.
The reality is that government in Indonesia has less influence over what happens than in most countries, and certainly over the thinking of a young and rapidly growing population.
While Indonesia is now one of the world’s biggest democracies, rule of law is inconstant. There are Australian businessmen in Indonesia now under arrest because they fell foul of their business partners. This is the business environment. Success depends on getting along with business. It will be the same with diplomacy. Riding with the hiccups will be part of the process.
Australia has to base its relationship with Indonesia on common interest, not what has become the view among Western governments about how poorer countries should develop. OECD aid donors now direct aid to root out corruption, strengthen rule of law, improve human rights, improve gender balance, increase environmental protection and make societies more equal. But they don’t have large developing countries as neighbours. Yet these goals now also influence Australia’s aid agenda.
Some have called for Australia to cut its aid unless Jakarta collaborates in stopping the boats. Nothing could better demonstrate to Indonesians that aid is being used to advance Australian interests, not Indonesia’s people. The response, anyway, in Jakarta would be “as you wish”.
Indonesia has already had a taste of Australian trade policy being used for political ends. Following pressure from activists, live cattle exports were banned, and costly import barriers were imposed to prove that imported timber products from Indonesia and other developing countries were legal.
Despite expert advice these measures would not work and cause resentment in Jakarta, Canberra let the activists have their way. There is no way we can work collaboratively on people-smuggling while that remains the case.
The writer is the principal of public policy consultancy ITS Global.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.