1) Ending our
pragmatic complicity in West Papua
2) BPK Details Misuse
of Papua Social Aid Funding
3) In Creation of New
Regions, Parties, Not People, Benefit
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/rollo-west-papua-complicity/5049204
1) Ending our pragmatic complicity in West Papua
Posted
Australia doesn't have to decide between protecting its security and ending its decades-long complicity in the repression of West Papuans, writes Stuart Rollo.
A newly released report from the Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission claims that two Iroquois attack helicopters supplied by Australia were deployed by the Indonesian military as part of their violent crackdown in West Papua in the 1970s.
The helicopters, synonymous with the Vietnam war and popularly referred to as 'Hueys', were part of the "genocidal" operation that killed over 4,000 Papuans between 1977 and 1978.
The news of Australian military hardware being used to murder West Papuan civilians comes to light just weeks after Tony Abbott's recent pledge to Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to "do everything that we possibly can to discourage and prevent" people using Australia "as a platform for grandstanding against Indonesia".
Taken together, these events highlight both the Australian Government's military and diplomatic support of Indonesian oppression in West Papua. Unfortunately, these instances just scratch the surface of Australia's historical complicity in the suppression of West Papuan human rights, collateral damage in the pursuit of self-interested national security objectives.
Cold war security logic, the fear of Indonesia as a potential military opponent, and the desire to minimise the 'arc of instability' to Australia's north have defined the Australian Government's policy on West Papua since 1962, the year Indonesia received a UN-mandated green light to occupy the region, replacing the Dutch as the resident colonial power.
Until 1962, the Australian Government had favoured a policy of gradual unification of West Papua with Papua New Guinea, the state which makes up the other half of the resource rich island of New Guinea. However, as then Indonesian president Sukarno began reinforcing his diplomatic offensive for control over West Papua with a massive Soviet-backed arms build-up in the early 1960s, the United States made the decision to appease the Indonesian government in order to arrest its feared slide towards communism. Australia soon followed suit.
On August 15, 1962, the 'New York Agreement' that would hand over control of West Papua to Indonesia was signed at the UN to the satisfaction of all concerned, except for the West Papuan people themselves who had no say in the matter.
The 'New York Agreement' stipulated that a vote on West Papuan independence must be conducted within six years of the Indonesian occupation. Despite the open secret that the Agreement itself amounted to the annexation of West Papua by Indonesia, in 1969 the Indonesian Government, now led by the nationalist dictator General Suharto, conducted the farcical 'Act of Free Choice', in which 1,026 Papuans, handpicked by, and under heavy duress from, the Indonesian government, signed over their country's freedom without the consent of the other 800,000 West Papuans.
One of Australia's earliest betrayals of the West Papuan people occurred on the eve of the 'Act of Free Choice', when two West Papuan politicians crossed the border into the then Australian administered territory of Papua New Guinea. They carried testimonies from West Papuan leaders calling for independence, with which they hoped to dissuade the United Nations from rubber stamping their recolonisation by Indonesia. They were not only refused any help to travel to the United Nations in New York by the Australian government, but, in accordance with an agreement reached with the Indonesian foreign minister Adam Malik, the Australians detained the men, along with many other West Papuan political activists, on Manus Island, now home to the Australian asylum seeker processing facility in PNG.
The UN was able to wash its hands of the whole affair, and the United States and Australia now had a right-wing strongman ruling over a unified territory as a regional bulwark against communism.
A special brand of Javanese imperialism ensued. The policy of Transmigrasi, under which millions of Javanese are encouraged to emigrate from their overpopulated island to the less-populous periphery of Indonesia, was pursued aggressively in West Papua. Ostensibly the transmigration policy was designed to reduce poverty by lowering the population density in Java, and to increase national prosperity by encouraging the exploitation of Indonesia's natural resources.
In West Papua, it has resulted in the Papuans becoming an ethnic minority in their own country. Multinational corporations began extracting the natural wealth of the Papuan people. The Suharto government signed the first contract with American multinational Freeport McMoRan in 1967, two years before West Papua was even officially part of Indonesia. Today, the same company is mining the world's largest gold deposit in Grasberg in West Papua, in which Anglo-Australian miner Rio Tinto has taken a 40 per cent stake. The Javanese migrants reap the benefits of wealth and job creation fuelled by the exploitation of West Papuan natural resources, the Government in Jakarta piles up the tax receipts from the multinational mining companies which operate outside of internationally recognised environmental standards, and the Papuans themselves remain the poorest ethnic group in Indonesia.
Despite the steady stream of information coming from West Papua highlighting the ongoing murders, tortures, environmental destruction, and suppression of civil liberties, Tony Abbott still confided in his Indonesian counterpart that he "admire(s) and respect(s) what you and your government have done to improve the autonomy and the life of the people of West Papua and I am confident that they can have the best possible life and the best possible future as a part of an indissoluble Indonesia, as an integral part of Indonesia". Regardless of the ease with which Mr Abbott paternalistically speaks on behalf of a million West Papuans who disagree with him, it is doubtful that he himself truly believes this statement.
What he and a plethora of Australian policymakers do believe, however, is that the appeasement of Indonesian nationalism is in the broader security interests of Australia. The Australian Defence White Paper of 2013 states that "The stability and security of Indonesia ... is of singular importance" and that "Australia's strong partnership with Indonesia remains our most important regional strategic relationship and the partnership continues to deepen and broaden in support of our significant shared interests". These interests of course include trade and access to seven of our top ten trading partners requires passage through Indonesian territorial waters, but more importantly they include 'regional stability'.
There has been a consensus for decades among policymakers that the primary threat to Australian security is a direct attack traversing through, or emanating from, the Indonesian archipelago. Policymakers believe that such an eventuality is much less likely to occur under a government in Jakarta that is intent on maintaining the territorial status-quo. An Indonesian rump state, bent on regaining resource-rich territory that it sees as rightfully its own, West Papua say, is another story altogether, and one that Australian policymakers are attempting to avoid by supporting Jakarta's territorial claims.
The desire to minimise the likelihood of military conflict with Indonesia is not the only thing stopping Australian support for West Papuan independence. Over the past decade, the Australian Defence Force has intervened in a number of vulnerable states in what policymakers describe as the 'arc of instability' to Australia's north. The perception that an independent West Papua would be a highly unstable state, which would require the commitment of a large amount of Australian aid and military support to remain viable, is another facet of why the Australian government favours Indonesian repression over West Papuan independence.
But perhaps the most cynical reason behind Australia's ongoing opposition to West Papuan independence involves the most toxic issue in Australian domestic politics, asylum seekers. The independence of West Papua would have the potential to create an exodus of hundreds of thousands of Javanese leaving the country. At the same time the impact of the loss of income from West Papuan resources, which makes up a large portion of the Indonesian government's revenue, would wreak havoc on the Indonesian economy. These events could combine to create a refugee torrent on Australia's doorstep that would make the current situation seem like a trickle. Once again, many Australian politicians and policymakers see the ongoing Indonesian occupation of West Papua, and all that it entails, as a small price to pay to avoid such a situation.
The solution to this dilemma lies in addressing the security concerns, not in offering up the West Papuan people as a scapegoat for them. The Australian relationship with Indonesia suffered a serious setback after East Timorese independence but it swiftly normalised - no war was fought. The potential for instability in both West Papua and Indonesia as a result of independence is real, but the support and stabilisation of both states as they transition is not beyond the capabilities of a resolute international community.
Similar concerns surrounded the issue of East Timorese independence 20 years ago. Pressure from the international community changed the concept of an independent East Timor from a dream into reality in less than a decade. The Australian role in East Timorese independence was undoubtedly the greatest foreign policy achievement of the Howard government. Australia's newly elected Liberal government should give heed to this historical parallel, and begin work to reverse the betrayals which Australia has so pragmatically inflicted on the West Papuan people. It could start by apologising for its historical role in arming Indonesia's repressive military, and reaffirming support for freedom of speech within Australia's borders.
Stuart Rollo is a freelance writer and essayist focusing on Asia-Pacific politics, international security, and Australian national affairs. View his full profile here.
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/bpk-details-misuse-of-papua-social-aid-funding/
2) BPK Details Misuse of Papua Social Aid Funding
Jayapura. A report from the Supreme Audit Agency from July 6 shows that a presidential adviser and several Papuan legislators received hundreds of millions of rupiah last under the guise of social aid from the from the budget of one of the least developed provinces in the country.
It was revealed that recipients of the money included local councilors and presidential adviser Velix Vernando Wanggai, who received Rp 200 million ($18,000).
The Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) report said the money to Velix, paid by the Papua provincial administration, was meant for the printing expenses of 3,000 copies of a book titled “Development for All: Managing Regional Development.”
Velix did not return calls for comment.
Yan Mandenas, one of the councilors who also received the social aid, said he would comment on the issue today.
Robert Jitmau, an analyst on social matters, said the money should have been allocated for the underprivileged.
“It’s called social aid, which means it should be used for social activities,” he said. “The councilors and the presidential adviser should be fighting for the people’s rights and not taking it from them.
“The money they took should have been for the people to fight for their interests,’’ Robert added.
Although the recipients were able to account for the money, Robert said it was still unethical of them to have accepted.
“We’re talking about the ethics and morality of the councilors and the presidential adviser. This is not a matter of accountability,’’ he said.
Robert alleged that the money handed out was a form of conspiracy between the government and the councilors.
“This could be an indication of a game between the government and legislative in the use of the provincial budget,” he said.
Among the councilors who received money from the 2012 social aid fund were Boy Markus Dawir, who used it to pay for his medical expenses in Singapore; Ruben Magai, who received Rp 200 million that he used to pay for the construction of his house; and Yunus Wonda, who received Rp 105 million, which he used to pay for his child to go to university in New Zealand, and another Rp 148 million for medical check-ups in Jakarta.
In June this year, the BPK revealed that nearly $1 billion in social aid funds was misused by two government ministries, prompting claims that the funds were being used to bankroll political campaigns ahead of next year’s elections. Various factors were blamed, including the lack of clarity on the fund recipients.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/in-creation-of-new-regions-parties-not-people-benefit/
3) In Creation of New Regions, Parties, Not People, Benefit
Following the House of Representatives’ approval to form 65 new administrative areas, questions have emerged over whether the creation of new regions will bring prosperity, especially in restive Papua.
House Speaker Marzuki Alie said that, among other reasons, a primary rationale behind the creation of so many new regions was to bring the government closer to the people, making land ownership processing more accessible and improving prosperity, especially in underdeveloped border areas.
But many analysts and experts reject that explanation, and suggest that the motive behind the creation of a whole slew of new administrations is to open up a rich new field of government spending, ripe for plowing by the local political elite. This argument even hints at the possibility of kickbacks for central government politicians in exchange for the opening of new regional bureaucracies, bringing fresh opportunity for corruption and patronage through the allocation of state funds on new local salaries and buildings.
In the 2013 national budget, the central government has allocated Rp 528.6 trillion ($48.1 billion) to more than 500 administrative regions so that they can finance their operations. The creation of 65 new regions means the government will have to spend an additional $5.9 billion next year on financing elections, civil servant salaries and new offices.
Analysts have said that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono should reject the House’s proposal to form new regions, because of this additional burden on the national budget.
“The creation of these many regions will be very costly. The money should instead be allocated directly to infrastructure, education and health care,” said Siti Zuhro, a regional autonomy expert at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI).
The Home Affairs Ministry said recently that half of the money allocated to regions was spent on salaries alone.
Regional corruption
Masdarsada, from the Institute for Political and Democratic Analysis in Jakarta, went as far as to argue that new regions would actually impoverish their residents compared to their current situations.
“If the government really wants to help local people, then use the money to build infrastructure, education and health facilities,” he said, echoing Siti’s comments.
According to the Indonesian Employers Association (Apindo), 85 percent of new regions fail to develop because few investors are keen to open businesses in newly created administrative areas due to incompetent and corrupt bureaucracies, legal uncertainty from unclear regional regulations, and rampant illegal fees.
Home Affairs Minister Gamawan Fauzi has acknowledged the problem, noting that 298 governors, district heads and mayors had been jailed since regional autonomy was introduced in 1999.
Haris Azhar, coordinator of the Jakarta-based Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), said the creation of new regions would simply provide unlimited opportunities for officials to embezzle regional budgets.
“This idea is perplexing. You have a lot of dirty dishes, but instead of washing them, you decide to build a new kitchen — that is just absurd,” he said.
Bribery and elections
In the face of clear evidence of the failure of new regions, in 2009 the government and the House actually agreed on a moratorium on the creation of new regions.
However, the lure of getting hefty kickbacks from local elites and the chance for political influence in new regions has proved too much to resist for political parties ahead of next year’s legislative and presidential elections.
Emerson Yuntho of Indonesia Corruption Watch said the public had good reason to be suspicious of legislators who proposed the creation of new regions.
“I think the KPK [Corruption Eradication Commission] should investigate what really happened,” he said.
Legislators have in the past been caught red-handed receiving money from regional officials who pushed for new laws or projects in their areas.
Meanwhile, new regions mean political parties have a chance to place party members in public office.
“I’m afraid it’s all about money and getting more votes rather than boosting prosperity for the people of those regions,” Emerson said.
Divide and conquer
In Papua, where discontent with the central government runs high, leading to pervasive separatist sentiment, division into five provinces is a means of breaking Papuan unity and reducing the push for Papuan independence, said Papuan priest Socratez Sofyan Yoman.
“The creation of new regions is based only on security and political motives. It groups Papuan ethnicities into different regions so they can’t unite,” Socratez said as quoted by Selangkah Magazine during a seminar in Yogyakarta last week.
He said the new regions could also create tension between indigenous Papuans and transmigrants, who continue to flood into Papua and have made the indigenous people a minority in many areas.
In 2005, native Papuans constituted 59 percent of documented citizens on the island. However, in 2011, that proportion had fallen to just 47 percent of the total population, according to census data.
Andreas Harsono, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, said that breaking the island up into tiny pieces was not a solution to the problems there.
“We know that Papua does not have sufficient human resources to support development,” he said.
“With this limitation there will be a lot of unqualified and incompetent civil servants employed, thus creating a poor-quality bureaucracy.”
Legal expert Irman Putra Sidin, however, said that new administrative areas might be good for Papua, adding that for a vast island like Papua, more local bureaucracy was needed to narrow the gap between the public and public services.
“You can imagine how far a Papuan has to go to obtain documentation. With new regional administrations, services will get closer and eventually make people’s lives easier,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.