Wednesday, September 18, 2013

1) TNI reboots Soeharto program


1) TNI reboots Soeharto program 
2) Is an Independent West Papuan State Possible?
3) Abbott Risks It All To Stop The Boats
4) West Papuans tell of anonymous late-night phone calls and visits from the Indonesian military
5) Papua Ablaze! The Need for a Touch of Hearts


-----------------------------------------------
1) TNI reboots Soeharto program 
The Jakarta Post | Headlines | Thu, September 19 2013, 11:02 AM
The Indonesian Military (TNI) is reviving the community service program that was popularly known as ABRI Masuk Desa (AMD) during the New Order era.

There are reservations that the program could potentially be abused by certain political elites to garner support for the upcoming 2014 elections.

Under the revamped program, which is called TNI Manunggal Membangun Desa (TMMD), members of the TNI will be deployed to villages to build infrastructure and teach civic and defense strategy to the public.

The new program, which is to be implemented twice every year, is a continuation of the Soeharto-era ABM, which was terminated soon after the fall of the Army general’s authoritarian regime in 1998.

Soeharto used the AMD as a tool to spy on any form of resistance toward his rule and to gain political support from villagers across the country for him to remain in power.

Army chief of staff Gen. Budiman gave assurances on Wednesday that the program would not be a repeat of the ABM, although its format was quite similar.

“We have no intention to enter into the civilian arena. As I said early on, my goal is to improve the military’s professionalism by putting soldiers in the right places in this democratic state,” he said during a press conference in Central Jakarta on Wednesday.

The first implementation of the program — which will run from Oct. 9 to 29, a mere six months before the 2014 presidential election — will also involve 1,000 recent university graduates selected by the Youth and Sports Ministry.

The program will leverage infrastructure development and public awareness programs in 61 regencies, 77 sub-districts and 99 villages across the country.

For the infrastructure projects, the military will help local residents build roads, bridges, mosques and other public facilities. For public awareness, the military, along with the new graduates, will counsel villagers about defense, rural prosperity, HIV/AIDS and other social issues.

Al-Araf, an analyst from the human rights organization Imparsial and a former lecturer at the Indonesian Defense University, said that the community service program could easily be abused for political objectives, especially in the run-up toward the 2014 general elections.

“I think this activity could also be used by certain political parties to gain grassroots support in the villages,” he said.

Al-Araf also said that the military was not the ideal institution to be teaching villagers about state defense or civic education.

“Teaching state defense or civic education is the responsibility of local governments, not the military. Instead of teaching villagers, the TNI needs to focus on its readiness for preventing war or being involved in international peacekeeping operations,” he said.

In recent years, the TNI has made inroads into having a greater role in politics.

Earlier this month, the Army signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) on counterterrorism with the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT).

Under the agreement, the military will be allowed to actively assist members of the public in tracing terror suspects or activities.

In July, the Army signed a MoU with the Trade Ministry to prevent smuggling at borders and ensure the smooth distribution of goods across the country. The agreement allows the Army to send troops to border areas to prevent illegal goods from entering the country.

The TNI will also help the government build 14 new highways, totaling 1,520 kilometers in length, in Papua and West Papua over the next two years. The heavy infrastructure development was recommended by the Presidential Unit to Accelerate the Development of Papua and West Papua (UP4B), as there are no private contractors that have the ability to do the job within the allocated budget of Rp 1.5 trillion (US$135.23 million).

Following the fall of the Soeharto regime, the new civilian government made efforts to abolish the military’s sociopolitical role, which had been known as half of the military’s dual function (Dwi fungsi).

In 1999, the Indonesian Armed Forces (ABRI), which comprised the Police, the Army (TNI AD), the Navy (TNI AL) and the Air Force (TNI AU), changed its name to the Indonesian Military (TNI) and excluded the National Police. (koi)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fairobserver.com/article/independent-west-papuan-state-possible

2) Is an Independent West Papuan State Possible?
17 SEPTEMBER 2013

Colonial attitudes must be overcome and replaced with international support for West Papuans.

 The very unpredictability of politics is the greatest hope for those seeking an independent West Papuan state. Here, some of the key issues occupying West Papuan nationalists and observers of the region's politics are addressed, including whether West Papuans are entitled to their own state; whether such a state would be politically and economically viable; and what chance Papuans have of forging their national vision into a constitutional reality.
D
o West Papuans Have a Right to Their Own State?
Although the answer to this question is politically unpalatable for Indonesia and the countries that have, to date, supported Indonesia’s “territorial integrity” (West Papua inclusive), under international law, West Papuans preserve the right to choose political independence.

 The right to self-determination is enshrined in treaty law through the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both of which declare: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
Indonesia acknowledged this right by agreeing to a United Nations-sponsored referendum in 1969, through which West Papuans were to be given a chance to opt either for integration with Indonesia or self-sovereignty. However, Indonesia thwarted the democratic process in the so-called Act of Free Choice (AFC). Less than one percent of West Papua's population was selected to vote on behalf of all West Papuans for Indonesian rule.
The unsurprisingly unanimous, pro-Indonesian decision under the AFC was accepted by the United Nations General Assembly later in 1969. Since then, West Papuans have lobbied the UN, Indonesia, and the international community to provide an unrigged ballot through which they might freely and fairly determine their own political status.
Co
CCould West Papuans Govern Themselves if Given the Chance?
This question smacks of a residual colonial mentality and resounds of fiscal self-interest. Yet it is a questionregularly posed, and often answered in the negative, by observers of West Papua’s independence movement. One may think, however, that Australia, for instance, might consider the money it could save by no longer funding and training many of the Indonesian troops and police deployed in West Papua to suppress “separatism.”
To be sure, an independent West Papua would face significant obstacles during and after an inauguration of self-rule. With a history of Jakarta-engineered divide and rule tactics targeted at foiling West Papuan attempts to politically consolidate as well as exacerbating tribal and regional enmities, West Papuans are already on the back foot in state making. 
Effective education, technology, and health infrastructure would need to be built almost from scratch. A culture of corruption and nepotism, ubiquitous within Indonesian politics, would need to be overcome, and English would have to be a widely spoken language — at least among West Papuan office holders so that West Papua can take part in international forums. 

 The racial and cultural gulf between the predominantly Asian Muslim migrants to West Papua — currently comprising more than half of the territory’s population — and indigenous Christian Papuans, may prove difficult to surmount even with fair governance.

 Nevertheless, West Papuans are wealthy in many respects. Economically, their land contains such substantial gold and copper deposits that it hosts one of the world’s largest gold and copper mines, owned by US-based Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc. West Papuans have spent the last 50 years, since Indonesian occupation of their land, forging a strong national identity and developing their struggle strategically, diplomatically and even militarily, all of which will stand them in good stead in the event of independence. This comes in contrast to neighboring Papua New Guinea, a country of frequent comparison, often criticized for its political instability, but whose independence came about all too easily in the view of some during the era of decolonization rather than through opposition to a colonial power, as would be the case for West Papua.

 Most importantly, perhaps, there are many West Papuans in the diaspora and in-country who are smart, capable and committed (unofficial) politicians. It could be said that Indonesian misrule has made independence activism a default career for hundreds if not thousands of educated Papuans both at home and abroad. In a sense, this is just as well since there has been a terrible toll of revered Papuan leaders since the 1970s at the hands of Indonesian security forces. 

 Driven into exile by constant death threats, human rights campaigner John Rumbiak suffered a stroke in 2005 and has never recovered, while the military assassinated the much-loved anthropologist, musicologist and musician, Arnold Ap, in 1984 and independence leader Theys Eluay in 2001. For their part, Indonesian police assassinated former guerilla leader Kelly Kwalik in 2009 and youth leader Mako Tabuni in 2012.

 A strong culture of civil resistance is developing amongst a cadre of well-educated and internationally connected West Papuan leaders with the potential to utilize their skills in a Papuan state. Interim government structures are generating a host of viable ideas about indigenously appropriate governance, and constitutional options. If given the opportunity to self-govern, there is no reason why West Papuans would be less able to function in this capacity than their neighbors in the formerly Indonesian state of East Timor.

illWill Indonesia Relinquish West Papua?
Although West Papuans should have the right to determine their own political future, and do have the capacity to govern a viable state, the likelihood of such an opportunity arising for them to do so is uncertain. And in the event of a referendum on independence, given that the migrant Indonesian Austronesian population in West Papua outnumbers the West Papuan Melanesian population, there is little incentive for the migrant residents to vote for independence.

 The importance of the revenue accrued to the Indonesian state from Freeport mine is enormous, as is the value of West Papuan land for oil palm plantations and settlements for Indonesian migrants seeking opportunities away from their overcrowded home islands. The Indonesian government’s attitude toward West Papuan aspirations for greater freedom is unlikely to relax under any of the several ultranationalist presidential candidates vying to follow on from President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono in 2014.
Even so, there are weaknesses in Indonesia’s hold over West Papua that Papuans are effectively exploiting, replenishing the independence movement with the oxygen of hope. Solidarity groups like International Parliamentarians for West Papua and International Lawyers for West Papua are gaining the support of big names from around the globe, largely through the campaigning of West Papuans in the diaspora such as Benny Wenda in the United Kingdom. 

 The efforts of one peak body for West Papuan independence groups, the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation, has recently been successful in placing, for consideration, West Papuan membership of the Melanesian Spearhead Group at the top of that group’s agenda. Mass media in Australia andelsewhere is highlighting human rights concerns in West Papua. Independent media is showcasing the conflict in feature films. Australian politicians havedebated the issue of West Papuan independence in parliament. And social media networks, to which many West Papuans are connected, are widely disseminating West Papuan requests for help.

 In the case of East Timor, it was Australian public sympathy and outrage that finally forced the Australian-led UN intervention into action, enabling the process towards independence to continue. West Papuans have demonstrated over the past five decades that they will not give up on their dream for independence, no matter how bloody Indonesia’s repression becomes. Indonesia is adamant that West Papua remains a part of its unitary state so that short of international intervention, whether diplomatic or military, West Papuans are unlikely to gain a new referendum on their political status.
If the West Papua crisis does unfold in a similar fashion to East Timor’s, hopefully it need not suffer its own Santa Cruz massacre of 250-plus protestors. Captured on film in 1991, this atrocity raised global awareness of the crisis in East Timor and transformed international support for its aspirations.

 Perhaps new media and technology publicizing the “slow-motion genocide” in West Papua will invoke similar public outrage, forcing the hand of the international community to attend to West Papuans’ demands. The odds are certainly stacked against West Papuan independence aspirations. But politics are fickle; hope is infectious; and East Timor demonstrated that David and Goliath have their contemporary counterparts. West Papuans have the most to lose in pursuit of a state for their nation, yet they never say die. As concerned observers, how can we?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
HTTPS://NEWMATILDA.COM//2013/09/19/ABBOTT-RISKS-IT-ALL-STOP-BOATS
FEDERAL POLITICS
19 Sep 2013

3) Abbott Risks It All To Stop The Boats

As the warnings from Jakarta get louder, Tony Abbott has shown he is prepared to scuttle Australia's relationship with Indonesia for cheap domestic politics, writes Ben Eltham
At what point does the Coalition’s obsession with “stopping the boats” collide with Australia’s national interest?
If you think the Indonesian relationship is Australia’s most important foreign policy priority, that point is now.
Australia’s northern neighbour is a sprawling and diverse democracy. It is also, compared with the minerals-rich continent to its south, relatively poor. Politics in Indonesia is dominated by domestic issues such as corruption and the state of the economy. A few thousand asylum-seekers moving through Java on the way to Australia has not been a particularly big issue.
According to Antje Missbach from the University of Melbourne, who has just spent ten months researching Indonesian legal responses to the issues, “people smuggling, asylum seeker issues in Indonesia, they are not a big deal.”
“If you normally read the news there, they are not even among the top ten list of priorities … It’s a bit of a side issue actually,” she told the ABC’s Damien Carrick this week. “For Australians, it’s very important to recognise that although it might be the most important topic here for the time being, it’s not for the Indonesians.”
The actions of the new Abbott Government could change that. Australia’s newly assertive approach to the multilateral problem of transnational migration is starting to have a serious impact on our bilateral relationship with Indonesia. That’s exceedingly bad news for Australia, because a good relationship with Indonesia is our most important foreign policy priority.
How do we know this? Because the Indonesians are telling us. You may not have noticed it if you read the Daily Telegraph, but Indonesia is starting to tire of the Coalition’s rhetoric on asylum seekers. Understandably, many in Indonesia’s government and parliament see it as meddling in Indonesia’s domestic affairs.
The warnings have been coming regularly for months now. In May, Indonesia's Ambassador to Australia, Nadjib Riphat Kesoema, warned the Coalition that Indonesia would not agree to the policy. “Indonesia is a target country and we are also the victim of this situation so I think it's not possible for the Coalition to say it has to go to Indonesia - back to Indonesia because Indonesia is not the origin country of these people,” Kesoema said. “We don't know the situation ahead of us right now but I think ... no such collaboration will happen ... between Indonesia and Australia.” 
During the election campaign, Mahfudz Siddiq, the head of Indonesia's parliamentary Foreign Affairs Commission, warned of the implications of the Coalition’s Operation Sovereign Borders. “It's an unfriendly idea coming from a candidate who wants to be Australian leader,” Siddiq told AAP in July. “That idea shows how he sees things … Don't look at us, Indonesia, like we want this people smuggling."
“This is really a crazy idea, unfriendly, derogatory and it shows lack of understanding in this matter.” 
Indonesian foreign minister Marty Natalegawa has also consistently warned Australia against towing back boats into Indonesian waters. “We will have a discussion with Abbott prior to the APEC Summit in October. We will reject his policy on asylum seekers and any other policy that harms the spirit of partnership," Natalegawa said last week, according to reports in the Jakarta Post. 
Natalegawa has also rejected the Coalition’s election promise to buy boats off Indonesian people smugglers, in an effort to stop the flow of maritime arrivals. “But for sure we will reject policies not in line with the spirit of partnership and [Indonesian] sovereignty and national integrity,” he said last week.
Last night on the ABC’s Lateline, Indonesian MP and Foreign Affairs Commission member Tantowi Yahya was equally blunt. Indonesia does not support turning back the boats, he told Tony Jones. “This is something like a consensus between the Government and the Parliament not to agree with the plan which is now being projected by the new Prime Minister, Mr Tony Abbott,” he said. “It’s illegal.” 
Australian radio shock jocks may dismiss such sentiments, but Yahwa’s remarks have a sound basis in international law. The legality of turning back boats has always been questionable. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, boarding or taking under tow a vessel in international waters without the permission of the captain is, under some circumstances, piracy.  
This has long been known. Indeed, a former Royal Australian Navy admiral, Chris Barrie, warned of this back in May.
Ben Saul, a Professor of international law at the University of Sydney, also questions the legality of turning back boats. “It is not legal to turn back a boat which is unseaworthy and on which the lives of passengers are in danger or at risk,” he wrote in The Conversation in July. “Australia has no right to board and search foreign vessels on the high seas, so Australia’s power to turn back boats is really confined in most cases to boats which are already in Australian territorial waters.”
“Illegal”, “derogatory”, a “policy that harms the spirit of partnership”, a policy Indonesia will “will reject”: these are the things Indonesian leaders, former admirals and legal experts are saying about Tony Abbott’s obsession with turning back boats.
The Coalition refuses to listen. Even before she was sworn in as Foreign Minister, Julie Bishopgave an interview to Sky News in which she claimed Australia would not need to “seek permission” to implement the new hardline policy. “What we have in place is a series of policies that we intend to implement by legislation and operationally, and they will not breach Indonesia's sovereignty,” she told Sky. “We're not asking for Indonesia's permission, we're asking for their understanding.”
This is madness. Australia is risking a critical relationship with a good neighbour for no other reason than cheap domestic politics. Operation Sovereign Borders is dangerous, potentially illegal, and obviously offensive to our key partner in the region. Something tells me that won’t stop the Abbott government from playing the wedge politics of asylum seekers. The Abbott government appears entirely willing to damage Australia’s national interests for the sake of “stopping the boats”.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)