1) POLICE CHIEF STATEMENT FALSE, GEMPAR
ARGUES
2) POLICE FIRED SHOTS, KILLING TWO AND INJURED THREE
3) RESIDENTS ARMED WITH ARROWS BLOCK
STREET OVER ROAD ACCIDENT
4) Tensions Continue as Houses Burned in Papua Tribal
Clash
5) Australia breaches RI sovereignty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) POLICE CHIEF STATEMENT FALSE, GEMPAR ARGUES
Jayapura , 12/3 ( Jubi ) – A student protest group denied police accusations that they were out to sabotage next month’s elections.
Jayapura police chief Alfred Papare said Wednesday ( 12/3 ) that protestors under the Youths, Students and People Movement ( Gempar) wanted to disrupt elections by calling for a boycott.
“We want to clarify regarding our permit for the action. As far as we know, we had delivered a notification letter one week before the rally ” Gempar coordinator Yason Ngelia told reporters.
“We want to clarify regarding our permit for the action. As far as we know, we had delivered a notification letter one week before the rally ” Gempar coordinator Yason Ngelia told reporters.
“We clearly said we do not boycott the election. We held a demonstration in order to reject the New Autonomy Bill. The chief accepted and responded immediately to us. He should have known our goal in this rally ” he stated.
A student was beaten up by police officers in the demonstration.
“We saw with our eyes. The presence of many officers was very excessive and we did not ask for such redundant security. We are also very disappointed that our friend Ailes Jikwa was beaten by police officers, ” he said.
“We saw with our eyes. The presence of many officers was very excessive and we did not ask for such redundant security. We are also very disappointed that our friend Ailes Jikwa was beaten by police officers, ” he said.
Philipus, member of Gempar urged police to return two megaphones and flags seized during the protest on March 4 in Waena, Jayapura.
“The police have operating allowances and we do not. So, do not take our stuff , ” Philipus told reporters (12/3). (Jubi/Aprila/Tina)
“The police have operating allowances and we do not. So, do not take our stuff , ” Philipus told reporters (12/3). (Jubi/Aprila/Tina)
----------------------------------------------------------------
2) POLICE FIRED SHOTS, KILLING TWO AND INJURED THREE
Jayapura, 12/3 (Jubi) – Two Timika residents were shot dead by police during clashes between Moni and Dani tribes over a land dispute on Tuesday (11/3), police and priests said.
Police opened fire at tribemembers who were approaching a police station during the tribal fighting in Iwaka, killing Epinus Magai and Yoen Wandagau, according to Pastor Hengki Magal.
The land dispute that erupted two months ago between the tribes of Moni and Dani has triggered clashes that claimed casualties.
“The Dani tribe has killed Kwein Yawame at 7 in the morning (Tuesday,11/3), and Moni people then came for revenge. Dani tribe members who were attacked retreated to the police guard station. So police fired shots,” Pastor Magal said on Wednesday (12/3).
Another pastor, Levinus Rumasep, said police also wounded five other residents.
Police Papua Spokesman, Commissioner Senior Sulistyo Pudjo Hartono confirmed the fatal shootings to OkeZone.com.
He said the police used water cannon and tear gas to ward off the Moni group who were attacking the Dani tribesmen but they turned against the police.
Police fired shots to defend themselves, killing two and injuring three. Two peoples were injured are Nokolek Abugau dan Okto Dimpau. One of them still be identified.
He said a police officer was also injured. “As the result of the attack of the Moni people, our official Brigadier Eka Suprianto was hit by an arrow in the neck. He was immediately evacuated to the hospital,” he said.
The police was patrolling the neighborhoods of Moni and Dani in Djayanti-Mayon to seize their traditional weapons that have been used to attack each other. (Jubi/Victor Mambor/rom)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3) RESIDENTS ARMED WITH ARROWS BLOCK STREET OVER ROAD ACCIDENT
Sentani 12/3 ( Jubi ) – Dozens of residents armed with bows and arrows took to the street of Sentani on Wednesday to demand compensation for a road accident that injured one of their relatives.
Some of the protestors threw rocks at shops, sparking fears among residents and shop owners along Jalan Raya Sentani and forcing the closure of Theys Field Sentani Airport.
“Women who saw those people with Jubi ( traditional weapons) were afraid and panicked,” Mama Paolo told tabloidjubi.com while running to safety with her baby on Wednesday ( 12/3 ).
“Women who saw those people with Jubi ( traditional weapons) were afraid and panicked,” Mama Paolo told tabloidjubi.com while running to safety with her baby on Wednesday ( 12/3 ).
She said that she was still traumatized by violent events that occurred in Sentani town a while ago.
The protestors were asking compensation amounting to 1.5 billion for injuries involving a relative who was hit by a car. It is believed that the victim was drunk when the accident happened.
But until Wednesday ( 12/3 ) there was no agreement despite a mediation effort involving the Police Traffic Unit (Satlantas) .
“The mediation process is still ongoing and the victim’s family are expected to be patient , ” Jayapura Police Chief Adjunct Senior Commissioner Sondra Siagian
But until Wednesday ( 12/3 ) there was no agreement despite a mediation effort involving the Police Traffic Unit (Satlantas) .
“The mediation process is still ongoing and the victim’s family are expected to be patient , ” Jayapura Police Chief Adjunct Senior Commissioner Sondra Siagian
He said he hoped the people involved not to resort to anarchy. (Jubi/D Budiman/Tina)
-------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/tensions-continue-houses-burned-papua-tribal-clash/
4) Tensions Continue as Houses Burned in Papua Tribal Clash
Jayapura. Tension between the Moni and Dani tribes in Papua continued to flare after police reported that six houses were burned to the ground on Wednesday, a day after Indonesia’s Mobile Brigade (Brimob) shot dead two men in Kuala Kencana district.
“The fire was started by Yulius Hanau’s faction within the Moni Tribe,” Papua Police spokesman Sr. Cmr. Sulistyo Pujo said. “They burned houses owned by the Dani tribe. The clash was inevitable.”
Sulistyo said police personnel and Indonesian soldiers had secured the location.
“We put the police and the army on standby,” Sulistyo said. ”They also separated the two tribes and built posts on both parties’ areas to avoid further clashes.”
The increased friction between the tribes began a month ago over a land dispute. Seven people have died since then, including Elpinus Magal and Joen Wandagau, two Moni men shot dead by police on Tuesday.
The shooting was still under investigation, police said.
“We’re questioning our personnel,” Papua Police Chief Inspector General Tito Karnavian said.
-------------------------------------------------------------
5) Australia breaches RI sovereignty?
Hikmahanto Juwana, Jakarta | Opinion | Thu, March 13 2014, 11:04 AM
There have been two incidents where orange lifeboats filled with asylum seekers bound for Australia were found in Indonesian territory. One boat was found in early February in Pangandaran in West Java and the other in late February in Kebumen, Central Java.
The boats are sophisticated, fully enclosed and submersible. They are fitted with safety belts, life jackets, navigational equipment, food, water and an inboard diesel motor. There are no signs whatsoever indicating the nationality of the boats. There are only labels stating that they were made in China.
It is believed that the boats were coming from Australia and were purchased by the Australian government. There are several indications of this. First, there has been news that the Australian government in recent times purchased similar orange lifeboats.
Second, Australian authorities need to ensure the safety of asylum seekers when they are turned back to Indonesia. This is because, since last November, the Australian authorities no longer work with the Indonesian Search and Rescue Team in returning the asylum seekers to Indonesian territory.
Last, purchasing the lifeboats seems to fit in with Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s tough policy against asylum seekers, who the Australian government has dubbed illegal immigrants. By labeling the asylum seekers as illegal immigrants, the Australian government is exempt from its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
To date, however, the Australian government has neither formally confirmed nor denied speculation that the vessels belong to and are used by Australian authorities. Currently the Indonesian police are investigating who the owners of the boats are.
If the boats are later proven to belong to the Australian government, the country has profoundly violated international law and infringed on Indonesia’s territorial sovereignty.
There are at least three fundamental legal bases for this accusation. First, Australia dispatched boats that it owns without the proper documents. Under international law, vessels are not allowed to conduct international navigation without proper registration, which can be identified by the flags
they carry.
Under Article 4 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, to which Australia is a party, “Every state, whether coastal or not, has the right to sail ships under its flag on the high seas”.
Based on this article, the question is, if Australia owns a boat but has not registered it and has made the boat sail without any flag of state, would this not be a violation of the international law of the sea? Can Australia argue that the boat is a lifeboat, which does not necessarily carry a national flag? If it is a lifeboat, is it attached to the boats that were used by the asylum seekers?
The Australian government may argue that it only returned the asylum seekers to the place from which they originated, which is Indonesia. It may also argue that the lifeboats simply replaced the boats that were formerly used by the asylum seekers.
But of course, such arguments are baseless. The situation would be different if the asylum seekers went to Australia from Indonesia. To start with, the Indonesian government was not the one that purchased or hired the boats used by the asylum seekers in their attempts to reach Australia.
The boats used by the asylum seekers were rented from Indonesian fishermen.
Second, Australia infringed on Indonesian sovereignty because it enabled unregistered boats to sail to Indonesian territory illegally.
Third, Australia intentionally caused the entry of illegal immigrants from its territory to Indonesia.
The asylum seekers are referred to as illegal immigrants because, when they were evacuated from distressed boats that they had rented to Australian ships, they did not have any formal documents.
It is different when the same people come to Indonesia to go to Australia. They arrive with proper documents, including passports. However, on their way to Australia, they intentionally throw their documents away. By doing this, they will be regarded as stateless and can seek asylum to Australia.
The above accusation will be clear if the Indonesian authorities can prove that the lifeboats are owned by Australian government.
This is where the police in Indonesia play an important role. Once they have gathered evidence and can conclude that the orange lifeboats are owned by the Australian government, Indonesia as a sovereign country has the right to lodge a strong protest against Australia’s infringement of Indonesia’s sovereignty and its violation of international law. The Australian government should therefore be held responsible.
For such purposes, if the Australian government does not want the bilateral relations with Indonesia to deteriorate, as happened recently following the issue of spying, then it would be wise for the Abbott administration to stop its unilateral policy of sending asylum seekers back to Indonesia aboard orange “suspected” Australian government lifeboats.
The writer is professor of international law at University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java.
The boats are sophisticated, fully enclosed and submersible. They are fitted with safety belts, life jackets, navigational equipment, food, water and an inboard diesel motor. There are no signs whatsoever indicating the nationality of the boats. There are only labels stating that they were made in China.
It is believed that the boats were coming from Australia and were purchased by the Australian government. There are several indications of this. First, there has been news that the Australian government in recent times purchased similar orange lifeboats.
Second, Australian authorities need to ensure the safety of asylum seekers when they are turned back to Indonesia. This is because, since last November, the Australian authorities no longer work with the Indonesian Search and Rescue Team in returning the asylum seekers to Indonesian territory.
Last, purchasing the lifeboats seems to fit in with Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s tough policy against asylum seekers, who the Australian government has dubbed illegal immigrants. By labeling the asylum seekers as illegal immigrants, the Australian government is exempt from its obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention.
To date, however, the Australian government has neither formally confirmed nor denied speculation that the vessels belong to and are used by Australian authorities. Currently the Indonesian police are investigating who the owners of the boats are.
If the boats are later proven to belong to the Australian government, the country has profoundly violated international law and infringed on Indonesia’s territorial sovereignty.
There are at least three fundamental legal bases for this accusation. First, Australia dispatched boats that it owns without the proper documents. Under international law, vessels are not allowed to conduct international navigation without proper registration, which can be identified by the flags
they carry.
Under Article 4 of the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, to which Australia is a party, “Every state, whether coastal or not, has the right to sail ships under its flag on the high seas”.
Based on this article, the question is, if Australia owns a boat but has not registered it and has made the boat sail without any flag of state, would this not be a violation of the international law of the sea? Can Australia argue that the boat is a lifeboat, which does not necessarily carry a national flag? If it is a lifeboat, is it attached to the boats that were used by the asylum seekers?
The Australian government may argue that it only returned the asylum seekers to the place from which they originated, which is Indonesia. It may also argue that the lifeboats simply replaced the boats that were formerly used by the asylum seekers.
But of course, such arguments are baseless. The situation would be different if the asylum seekers went to Australia from Indonesia. To start with, the Indonesian government was not the one that purchased or hired the boats used by the asylum seekers in their attempts to reach Australia.
The boats used by the asylum seekers were rented from Indonesian fishermen.
Second, Australia infringed on Indonesian sovereignty because it enabled unregistered boats to sail to Indonesian territory illegally.
Third, Australia intentionally caused the entry of illegal immigrants from its territory to Indonesia.
The asylum seekers are referred to as illegal immigrants because, when they were evacuated from distressed boats that they had rented to Australian ships, they did not have any formal documents.
It is different when the same people come to Indonesia to go to Australia. They arrive with proper documents, including passports. However, on their way to Australia, they intentionally throw their documents away. By doing this, they will be regarded as stateless and can seek asylum to Australia.
The above accusation will be clear if the Indonesian authorities can prove that the lifeboats are owned by Australian government.
This is where the police in Indonesia play an important role. Once they have gathered evidence and can conclude that the orange lifeboats are owned by the Australian government, Indonesia as a sovereign country has the right to lodge a strong protest against Australia’s infringement of Indonesia’s sovereignty and its violation of international law. The Australian government should therefore be held responsible.
For such purposes, if the Australian government does not want the bilateral relations with Indonesia to deteriorate, as happened recently following the issue of spying, then it would be wise for the Abbott administration to stop its unilateral policy of sending asylum seekers back to Indonesia aboard orange “suspected” Australian government lifeboats.
The writer is professor of international law at University of Indonesia, Depok, West Java.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.