1) The MSG’s
visit: A blessing or curse for Papuans?
2) Indonesian Army to Build Roads in
Papua
3) New Provinces Receive the Nod
4) 65 new
autonomous regions, proposed,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The MSG’s visit: A blessing or curse for Papuans?
Budi Hernawan, Jayapura | Opinion | Sat, October 26 2013, 10:49 AM
Late in September, Vanuatu broke the silence over human rights abuses in Papua. In light of the humanitarian crisis in Syria, Prime Minister Moana Carcasses Kalosil raised the situation in Papua with the UN General Assembly.
He requested that this body appoint a special representative to investigate the state of human rights abuses in Papua. Vanuatu is no stranger to the Papuan cause. On the contrary, it is the driving force of the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s (MSG) empathy for Papua.
Many of us may not be so well-informed of the invitation extended by the Indonesian government for the MSG to visit Jakarta and Papua. Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Djoko Suyanto presented the invitation to the Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama during his visit to Fiji in June 2013.
During the 19th MSG summit in Noumea, New Caledonia, the MSG leaders welcomed the invitation and decided to send a Foreign Ministerial Mission (FMM) to Jakarta and Papua led by Fiji. This decision reflects deliberation over the application for membership submitted by the West Papuan National Coalition of Liberation (WPNCL) on behalf of Papuans.
This is an important decision. It highlights the surge of interest among MSG countries to significantly contribute to peace efforts in Papua, the region with longest unresolved subnational conflict in the Pacific. More importantly, in their spirit of cooperation with Jakarta, MSG leaders are paving the way toward an end to the stalemate surrounding peace initiatives promoted by Papuan and Indonesian civil society.
What is the significance of the FMM for Papua’s peace efforts? The 2013 MSG Summit was the first forum of its kind to officially invite Papuan representatives. They addressed the summit as official guests. They were equal to Indonesia and Timor Leste, which both have observer status. They no longer have to stand behind the Vanuatu delegation, as they used to. In other words, Papuans were recognized internationally as a political entity equal to that of MSG members and observers.
Second, if properly handled by the government and Papuans, the FMM may carve a new space for dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. This would be an unprecedented move, given the stalemate currently experienced by both sides in engaging with Papuan peace initiatives. The MSG diplomacy may encourage the opposing parties to find a feasible solution for conflicts in Papua.
Third, if properly exploited by the government and Papuans, the visit could result in a significant improvement of the image of both sides. Indonesia will take its credit and be more respected as a genuine democracy through a high-level visit to Papua. Papuans, on the other hand, will gain momentum in the quest to substantially engage with international diplomacy in a more strategic way.
There are some key challenges, however, that will confront both sides.
First are the issues of suspicion on the government’s side and over-expectation on that of Papua. As we already know, Indonesian hard-liners remain resistant to accepting the idea of a Jakarta-Papua dialogue. So this group tends to be dogmatic in interpreting any international diplomacy with Papua as an attempt to undermine Indonesia’s sovereignty.
On the other hand, sovereignty implies a commitment to the protection of citizens. This is the essence of the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle to which Indonesia subscribes.
On the Papuan side, there is a risk that the visit will be misinterpreted as providing a conclusive solution to the Papuan conflict. This can be misleading. While the spirit of the Melanesian brotherhood is well represented in this mission, it is not within the MSG jurisdiction to solve the Papua problem. The MSG, however, will definitely welcome any invitation to act as mediator of Jakarta-Papua political negotiations, but such an option will very much depend on the government’s decision.
Second, if Papuans are not able to make the appropriate preparations and work closely with the MSG, it is not unlikely that the visit will be nothing more than “business as usual”, in the sense that it will not substantially cover the complex reality of the Papuan conflicts. This risk may become a reality if Papuans do not prepare specific agendas and a plan of action for the FMM. If this happens, Papuans will miss a strategic opportunity to highlight their causes with their closest, and most sympathetic, neighbors.
Third, Papuans will have to make sure that information about the MSG is distributed among the Papuan community. The community has to be well-informed about the meaning, benefits and limits of such a diplomatic mission. This is necessary for the elimination of unrealistic expectations among Papuans, in order to work out a feasible strategy for a peaceful solution.
This is a challenging task, given that certain key Papuan leaders are incarcerated and so are unable to disseminate information to their people. The Papuan civil society, however, can play a critical role here. In collaboration with the media, they need to fill this information gap.
The FMM can only be effective in paving the way for peace in Papua on two conditions: First, there must be willingness on the part of the government to cooperate fully and allow the FMM unrestricted access to meet any relevant individuals and organizations. Second, Papuans must prepare a clear agenda and a plan of action for the FMM.
The writer is a part time researcher at Franciscans International, an international NGO accredited with the United Nations and is based in Jayapura, Geneva and New York. The views expressed are personal.
He requested that this body appoint a special representative to investigate the state of human rights abuses in Papua. Vanuatu is no stranger to the Papuan cause. On the contrary, it is the driving force of the Melanesian Spearhead Group’s (MSG) empathy for Papua.
Many of us may not be so well-informed of the invitation extended by the Indonesian government for the MSG to visit Jakarta and Papua. Coordinating Political, Legal and Security Affairs Minister Djoko Suyanto presented the invitation to the Fijian Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama during his visit to Fiji in June 2013.
During the 19th MSG summit in Noumea, New Caledonia, the MSG leaders welcomed the invitation and decided to send a Foreign Ministerial Mission (FMM) to Jakarta and Papua led by Fiji. This decision reflects deliberation over the application for membership submitted by the West Papuan National Coalition of Liberation (WPNCL) on behalf of Papuans.
This is an important decision. It highlights the surge of interest among MSG countries to significantly contribute to peace efforts in Papua, the region with longest unresolved subnational conflict in the Pacific. More importantly, in their spirit of cooperation with Jakarta, MSG leaders are paving the way toward an end to the stalemate surrounding peace initiatives promoted by Papuan and Indonesian civil society.
What is the significance of the FMM for Papua’s peace efforts? The 2013 MSG Summit was the first forum of its kind to officially invite Papuan representatives. They addressed the summit as official guests. They were equal to Indonesia and Timor Leste, which both have observer status. They no longer have to stand behind the Vanuatu delegation, as they used to. In other words, Papuans were recognized internationally as a political entity equal to that of MSG members and observers.
Second, if properly handled by the government and Papuans, the FMM may carve a new space for dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. This would be an unprecedented move, given the stalemate currently experienced by both sides in engaging with Papuan peace initiatives. The MSG diplomacy may encourage the opposing parties to find a feasible solution for conflicts in Papua.
Third, if properly exploited by the government and Papuans, the visit could result in a significant improvement of the image of both sides. Indonesia will take its credit and be more respected as a genuine democracy through a high-level visit to Papua. Papuans, on the other hand, will gain momentum in the quest to substantially engage with international diplomacy in a more strategic way.
There are some key challenges, however, that will confront both sides.
First are the issues of suspicion on the government’s side and over-expectation on that of Papua. As we already know, Indonesian hard-liners remain resistant to accepting the idea of a Jakarta-Papua dialogue. So this group tends to be dogmatic in interpreting any international diplomacy with Papua as an attempt to undermine Indonesia’s sovereignty.
On the other hand, sovereignty implies a commitment to the protection of citizens. This is the essence of the responsibility to protect (R2P) principle to which Indonesia subscribes.
On the Papuan side, there is a risk that the visit will be misinterpreted as providing a conclusive solution to the Papuan conflict. This can be misleading. While the spirit of the Melanesian brotherhood is well represented in this mission, it is not within the MSG jurisdiction to solve the Papua problem. The MSG, however, will definitely welcome any invitation to act as mediator of Jakarta-Papua political negotiations, but such an option will very much depend on the government’s decision.
Second, if Papuans are not able to make the appropriate preparations and work closely with the MSG, it is not unlikely that the visit will be nothing more than “business as usual”, in the sense that it will not substantially cover the complex reality of the Papuan conflicts. This risk may become a reality if Papuans do not prepare specific agendas and a plan of action for the FMM. If this happens, Papuans will miss a strategic opportunity to highlight their causes with their closest, and most sympathetic, neighbors.
Third, Papuans will have to make sure that information about the MSG is distributed among the Papuan community. The community has to be well-informed about the meaning, benefits and limits of such a diplomatic mission. This is necessary for the elimination of unrealistic expectations among Papuans, in order to work out a feasible strategy for a peaceful solution.
This is a challenging task, given that certain key Papuan leaders are incarcerated and so are unable to disseminate information to their people. The Papuan civil society, however, can play a critical role here. In collaboration with the media, they need to fill this information gap.
The FMM can only be effective in paving the way for peace in Papua on two conditions: First, there must be willingness on the part of the government to cooperate fully and allow the FMM unrestricted access to meet any relevant individuals and organizations. Second, Papuans must prepare a clear agenda and a plan of action for the FMM.
The writer is a part time researcher at Franciscans International, an international NGO accredited with the United Nations and is based in Jayapura, Geneva and New York. The views expressed are personal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Indonesian Army to Build Roads in Papua
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Army Chief of Staff General Budiman said his troops are about to commence a 14-road project in Papua. According to the, a special team of three battalions from the army is deployed in Papua. "They will be joining another battalion from Papua," said the General.
Budiman will also send all vehicles and equipments needed to construct the roads in Papua. There will be in total of 420 heavy-equipments delivered to Papua next week.
When both the army and equipments are in place, the project will begin by cutting down the thick forest. However, the Chief of Staff stated his concern on weather, fearing the Papua's sky will 'interfere' the already-difficult assignment.
The project itself is not a part of the Special Unit for the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua (UP4B). The Deputy at Commission I at the House of Representatives (DPR) Agus Gumiwang Kartasasmita said in defense that the road construction option can help shorten bureaucracy, as it was offered in UP4B.
INDRA WIJAYA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
3) New Provinces Receive the Nod
The House of Representatives on Friday agreed to the formation of 65 new administrative areas, including the creation of eight new provinces. Three of the new provinces, and 26 new districts and mayoralties will be located on the island of New Guinea.
The House’s agreement, given by acclaim, will be forwarded to the government for approval, House Speaker Marzuki Alie said.
“With these new regions, it is hoped that we can shorten the line of authority, improve land and security aspects, and no less importantly, reflect historical and cultural realities,” Marzuki said.
He said it was hoped that the new regions, especially in areas bordering neighboring nations, will enable speedier development so they are less vulnerable to the territorial claims of other countries.
“We hope everything will go smoothly,” he added.
The eight new provinces are Sumbawa Island, South Papua, Central Papua, Southwest Papua, Tapanuli, Nias Islands, Kapuas Raya and Bolang Mongondow Raya.
From Papua province, the new regions created are the districts of Gili Menawa, Moyo, Balin Senter, Bogogha, Puncak Trikora, Muara Digul, Admi Korbay, Katengban, Okika, Northwest Yapen, East Yapen, Numfor Island, Yalimek, Mambera Hulu, Southwest Yahukimo, East Yahukimo and Gondumisisare, and municipalities of Merauke City and Baliem Valley.
In West Papua, the new regions are the districts of Malamoy, Maibratsau, North Raja Ampat , South Raja Ampat, Raja Maskona, Okas, Manokwari City, West Manokwari and Imeo.
The other new districts are Pantai Barat Mandailing in North Sumatra, Kundur Islands in the Riau Islands province, Renah Indra Jati in West Sumatra, the Muaro Bungo municipality in Jambi, the Lembak district in Bengkulu, and the district of Bigi Maria and Pantai Timur in South Sumatra.
There will be three new districts in West Java — South Garut, North Sukabumi, and West Bogor.
Kalimantan will see four new districts: Sekayam Raya and Banua Banjak in West Kalimatan, and South Berau Pesisir and South Paser in East Kalimantan.
Sulawesi will see new districts — Talaud Selatan in North Sulawesi, South Bone in South Sulawesi, and Bolio Huto, Panip and West Gorontalo in Gorontalo — and two new municipalities — Tahuna and Langoa, both in North Sulawesi.
The other new regions are the district of South Lombok on Lombok island, the district of Adonara and the municipality of Maumere on Flores island, as well as the districts of Wasile and Obi islands in North Maluku.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) 65 new autonomous regions, proposed,
Nethy Dharma Somba and Apriadi Gunawan, The Jakarta Post, Jayapura/Medan | Headlines | Sat, October 26 2013, 10:31 AM
Despite the results of various academic and government studies that have shown that the expansion of new cities, regencies and provinces very often has an adverse impact on local economies and politics, the House of Representatives (DPR) decided on Friday to deliberate the creation of several new autonomous regions. The plan was drawn up in apparent secrecy.
With legislative elections only six months away, the House decided to assign Commission II, which oversees home affairs and regional autonomy, to discuss the establishment of 65 new autonomous regions, including eight new provinces mainly in North Sumatra, Papua and Kalimantan.
The government had previously announced a moratorium in 2009 following the death of North Sumatra Provincial Legislative Council speaker Aziz Angkat during a violent demonstration by the supporters of the establishment of Tapanuli province in North Sumatra.
The moratorium ended in November 2011 and since then 12 new regions have emerged. Earlier this year seven new regencies were formed.
“Among the factors, aside from the economic and cultural considerations, behind proposing these new autonomous regions are the strengthening of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia within its borders and the need to meet local aspirations,” House speaker Marzuki Alie said during the House plenary session on Friday.
During Friday’s session the House endorsed 65 bills on the creation of eight provinces, and 57 regencies to be deliberated by Commission II. Once they are endorsed the bills will automatically become law within 30 days without the need for approval from the government.
“This new bills will be debated in the next House sessions,” said Marzuki.
Separately, Home Affairs Minister Gamawan Fauzi, who will represent the government in the deliberation sessions, said he still could not decide on the government’s stance on the matter as there had been no instructions from the President concerning the creation of new regional governments.
The minister said the President would gather related ministries to discuss the matter before giving any formal instructions. “I do not want to speculate as it is a politically sensitive issue,” Gamawan said.
Home Ministry data shows that 217 new autonomous regions were formed between 1999 and 2013, including eight provinces, 175 regencies and 34 cities.
A report by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) revealed that more than 80 percent of new autonomous regions failed to improve the welfare of their people and eventually became a burden on the state budget.
The plan to set up new provinces in Papua has often been seen as an effort by the central government to divide Papuans rather than having them present a united front against the central government.
Yusak Reba, an activist at the Institute for Civil Strengthening in Papua, hoped that decentralization would lead to an improvement in the welfare of indigenous Papuans and not have the opposite effect of marginalizing them.
“After decentralization, Papuans are still poor and don’t even have proper housing, healthcare or education. It is as if decentralization only profits the few,” Yusak said.
Tahan Manahan Panggabean, who has campaigned to make Tapanuli a province since the 1980s said the House approval was a positive move. (asw)
With legislative elections only six months away, the House decided to assign Commission II, which oversees home affairs and regional autonomy, to discuss the establishment of 65 new autonomous regions, including eight new provinces mainly in North Sumatra, Papua and Kalimantan.
The government had previously announced a moratorium in 2009 following the death of North Sumatra Provincial Legislative Council speaker Aziz Angkat during a violent demonstration by the supporters of the establishment of Tapanuli province in North Sumatra.
The moratorium ended in November 2011 and since then 12 new regions have emerged. Earlier this year seven new regencies were formed.
“Among the factors, aside from the economic and cultural considerations, behind proposing these new autonomous regions are the strengthening of the unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia within its borders and the need to meet local aspirations,” House speaker Marzuki Alie said during the House plenary session on Friday.
During Friday’s session the House endorsed 65 bills on the creation of eight provinces, and 57 regencies to be deliberated by Commission II. Once they are endorsed the bills will automatically become law within 30 days without the need for approval from the government.
“This new bills will be debated in the next House sessions,” said Marzuki.
Separately, Home Affairs Minister Gamawan Fauzi, who will represent the government in the deliberation sessions, said he still could not decide on the government’s stance on the matter as there had been no instructions from the President concerning the creation of new regional governments.
The minister said the President would gather related ministries to discuss the matter before giving any formal instructions. “I do not want to speculate as it is a politically sensitive issue,” Gamawan said.
Home Ministry data shows that 217 new autonomous regions were formed between 1999 and 2013, including eight provinces, 175 regencies and 34 cities.
A report by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) revealed that more than 80 percent of new autonomous regions failed to improve the welfare of their people and eventually became a burden on the state budget.
The plan to set up new provinces in Papua has often been seen as an effort by the central government to divide Papuans rather than having them present a united front against the central government.
Yusak Reba, an activist at the Institute for Civil Strengthening in Papua, hoped that decentralization would lead to an improvement in the welfare of indigenous Papuans and not have the opposite effect of marginalizing them.
“After decentralization, Papuans are still poor and don’t even have proper housing, healthcare or education. It is as if decentralization only profits the few,” Yusak said.
Tahan Manahan Panggabean, who has campaigned to make Tapanuli a province since the 1980s said the House approval was a positive move. (asw)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.