1) JOKOWI TO VISIT PAPUA FOR SECOND TIME
2) COMMISSION A OF PAPUA PARLIAMENT:
ELECTED PRESIDENT SHOULD HOLD DIALOGUE
3) JAKARTA SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO
BORDER ISSUES: OFFICIAL
4) Australia’s conservatism and unilateralism
--------------------------------------------------------------
1) JOKOWI TO VISIT PAPUA FOR SECOND TIME
Jayapura, 2/6 (Jubi) – President candidate Joko Widodo will visit Papua to meet with the representatives of NGOs, students, religious leaders and to launch a volunteer group.
Jokowi and his running mate Jusuf Kalla were scheduled to arrive in Sentani Airport Jayapura on Thursday (5/6). Besides meeting the local figures in Jayapura, they were scheduled to visit Wamena, Jayawijaya Regency and Timika, Mimika Regency.
The chairman of Regional Council of PDIP Papua, Komarudin Watubun, said Jokowi was scheduled to meet with his supporters at Waringin Gymnasium, Jayapura City.
“Jokowi has decided to start his series of campaign from Papua because it is the region where the sun rises before it goes to other regions. In addition, he also wants to meet his supporters,” he said on the Monday night (2/6).
“Jokowi has decided to start his series of campaign from Papua because it is the region where the sun rises before it goes to other regions. In addition, he also wants to meet his supporters,” he said on the Monday night (2/6).
The Media Coordinator of Papua Volunteer for Jojowi (Lapak Papua), Jerry Omona, said Jokowi would also visit some traditional markets and meet with the local residents in Jayapura City to hear their aspirations.
On-the-ground visits, or blusukan, are his trademark and will be the hallmark of his campaign.
“Blusukan is not self-promotion as reported in the media. It is part of his style to be close to the people. He did it in favor to understand and listen their voices,” said Omuna.
“Blusukan is not self-promotion as reported in the media. It is part of his style to be close to the people. He did it in favor to understand and listen their voices,” said Omuna.
He further said Lapak Papua with other voluntary teams in Papua would hold several activities to welcome Jokowi, including mobilizing thousands of supporters to vote Jokowi by distributing the leaflets and collecting the public signatures on the white cloth. The activities would be held in the central of Abepura, Jayapura.
“Papua residents joyfully welcome Jojowi. It is his second visit to Papua. At first on last 5 April for the legislature campaign,” said Omuna.
“Papua residents joyfully welcome Jojowi. It is his second visit to Papua. At first on last 5 April for the legislature campaign,” said Omuna.
Meanwhile, the Coordinator of Lapak Papua, Engelbert Dimara said this visit to Papua is not for non-purpose. Although the number of voters in Papua is smaller than other regions, but the active participatory of Papua residents is extraordinary,” he said. Based on their campaign schedule, Jokowi-JK will visit the other parts of Indonesia within a month after visiting Papua for the upcoming presidential election.(Jubi/Indrayadi TH/rom)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
2) COMMISSION A OF PAPUA PARLIAMENT: ELECTED PRESIDENT SHOULD HOLD DIALOGUE
Jayapura, 2/6 (Jubi) – The Political, Governmental and Human Rights Division of Commission A at Papua’s parliament urged any person elected in the July 9 presidential election will resolve the conflict in Papua and hold a dialogue.
The chairman of the Commission A, Ruben Magay said at the end of his administration, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said he would make efforts to resolve the issues on Papua and never materialized.
“Until today, the people are still waiting for a dialogue. But it has never been realized during ten years of SBY administration. Of course, they expect the elected president would be able to resolve those issues, the elected president must realize a dialogue. It was people’s aspirations for years,” Ruben Magay said to tabloidjubi.com on Monday (2/6).
“Until today, the people are still waiting for a dialogue. But it has never been realized during ten years of SBY administration. Of course, they expect the elected president would be able to resolve those issues, the elected president must realize a dialogue. It was people’s aspirations for years,” Ruben Magay said to tabloidjubi.com on Monday (2/6).
According to him, both president candidates knew a lot about the Papua’s issues. Therefore, they must put Papua in their first agenda.
“A dialog is the most important because Papua has already been the international spotlight. It’s not only the problem of Jakarta and Papua. So whoever has been elected, he should be able to accommodate the issues in Papua including the human right violations and the political issues,” he said.
“A dialog is the most important because Papua has already been the international spotlight. It’s not only the problem of Jakarta and Papua. So whoever has been elected, he should be able to accommodate the issues in Papua including the human right violations and the political issues,” he said.
The idea on Jakarta-Papua Dialogue has been raised several years ago. It was just not getting support from some human right activists but also from the religious leaders. In the 4th Indonesia Inter Faith Network Conference, the Coordinator Elga Sarapung said the network has spoke about Papua, especially about how to support the realization of peaceful dialogue between Papua and Jakarta.
“We have discussed about the dialogue in our previous conference. We agreed to continuously support the realization of dialogue,” said Sarapung.
“We have discussed about the dialogue in our previous conference. We agreed to continuously support the realization of dialogue,” said Sarapung.
Futher JAII expected the dialogue could be realized though they aware about the differences and it still on the course because the government has not taken a concrete action. (Jubi/Arjuna/rom)
-------------------------------------------------------------
3) JAKARTA SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO BORDER ISSUES: OFFICIAL
Jayapura, 2/6 (Jubi) – Papua Regional Secretary Herry Dosinaen said the central government needs to pay serious attention to border areas due to their complex issues.
“The central government needs to consider border areas such as Skouw, Boven Digoel and Pegunungan Bintang since local citizens have the equal tenure rights on the land both in our territory or the neighboring country. They are from the same tribes and have similar culture,” Dosinaen told a visiting delegation from the Presidential Advisory Council (Wantimpres) in Jayapura on Monday (2/6).
The provincial government urged Jakarta to establish a special ministry to deal with border issues, including security, politics and economics.
So far the provincial government has made efforts to deal with those issues in cooperation with all parties including the military and police.
Earlier, the coordinator of Wantimpres, Andi Ramses Marpaung, admitted that there has been little attention paid to the border areas, resulting in local citizens adopting the neighboring state’s identity. (Jubi/Alex/rom )
-----------------------------------------------------------
4) Australia’s conservatism and unilateralism
Pierre Marthinus, Jakarta | Opinion | Tue, June 03 2014, 10:25 AM
The concept of Tex(aus)tralia argues that Canberra’s foreign policy and security strategies will continue to mirror the blunders made by the United States under president George W. Bush.
First, the term conservatism refers to Australia’s attachment to out-of-date values and institutions, “old world” alliances and a backward looking search for a sense of safety, security and stability.
Second, unilateralism refers to Australia’s preference for tackling regional and bilateral issues through unilateral policies and actions. Interestingly, Canberra’s conservatism prefigures its rejection of multilateralism; dictating that Australia will continue to prefer and prioritize obsolete far-flung security arrangements over newer regional alignments that are more inclusive, comprehensive, innovative and relevant to its constantly evolving strategic environment. An over-reliance on trans-Atlantic powers heavily invested and entangled in Middle East affairs dictates that strategic interests in the immediate region will be addressed autonomously.
Some notable examples of Australian unilateralism regarding Indonesia include; (1) the granting of asylum to 46 Papuans arriving by boat in 2006, (2) the cutting off of beef supplies ahead of Ramadhan due to animal rights issues in 2011, (3) the placement of US troops in Darwin in 2011, (4) Australian plans to purchase boats directly from local Indonesian fishermen (as if Indonesia was an Australian province) in 2011, and (5) the latest Operation Sovereign Border repeatedly entering Indonesian waters and violating territorial sovereignty.
Despite their bilateral effects, Australian policies and actions were consistently made absent any consultation with its Indonesian counterpart.
Last, interventionism refers to Australia’s unapologetic preference for interference and intervention into the domestic affairs of other countries, both through blatant and subtle forms of violence.
In the same way that conservatism produces unilateralism, unilateralism begets interventionism: relying entirely on one’s own power makes rational thinking “survivalist”, and everything then becomes framed in Manichean extremes of “live or die”, “good or evil”, “devastation here or bringing the war there”, “closed borders or a flood of immigrants” and “turn back the boats or be forced into one sailing back to Britain”.
This was understandably the same “survival mode” thought characterizing US thought in the wake of the devastating 9/11 tragedy — what could be called the “lonely power” syndrome; a sense of total abandonment, helplessness and distrust of others in the fight to survive, let alone provide safety, security and stability.
Some notable examples of Australian interventionism affecting Indonesia include; (1) the military intervention against Indonesia during Konfrontasi in Sarawak between 1964-1966, (2) Australian-led intervention into East Timor in 1999, (3) unapologetic spying into Indonesia’s inner circle as revealed in 2013 and (4) repeated breaches of Indonesian territorial sovereignty during Operation Sovereign Borders.
For Australians reading this article and finding themselves wondering “are we then supposed to do nothing?” I must stress that interventionism is not a policy preference; it is a mental inability to imagine policies and courses of action outside the extremes of intervention and inaction, despite the availability of numerous middle-ground alternatives.
Globally, Australia’s staunch alliance with the US makes it one of the most recognizable faces of global interventionism, and as evidenced by the Bali and Australian Embassy bombings, a magnet for terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the presence of US military assets in the country makes Australia a prime target for a nuclear attack should a direct US-China military conflict break out.
Regionally, interventionism characterizes Australia’s engagement with its immediate neighbors. Canberra maintains a developmental aid “choke hold” on Papua New Guinea, and is establishing developmental-cum-espionage missions into Indonesia’s Papua provinces.
Australia’s unilateral and regional grandstanding tendencies in the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) have offended several of its member states and spurred the development of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) as an alternative and preferable regional political body — for the simple, obvious and understandable reason that it excludes Australia. Since 2006, Fiji has been engaged in an open row with Australia and expelled Australian diplomats in 2009 for meddling in Fiji’s internal affairs and for lobbying hard against Fiji-led regional initiatives.
Today, Timor Leste is bringing Australia to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of unethical spying, intervention and the rigging of the Timor Gap negotiations in Canberra’s favor. By standing up to Australian interventionism, the small nations of Fiji and Timor Leste have exhibited outsize mettle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Indonesia under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
In summary, Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders is no outlier; it is the norm, the rule, and the epitome of contemporary Australian foreign and security policy thought (blunders). The fact that a military conflict might be looming in the future is deeply distressing, but it would be much better for the Garuda of Indonesia to enter it screeching, clawing and biting wholeheartedly than to just passively endure injury.
The fact that Yudhoyono has directed the ambassador to return to Canberra, bending over backwards to “normalize” Australian relations, indicates that Indonesian sovereignty comes with a price tag, and a rather cheap one.
In dealing with Australia, the incoming Indonesian leadership needs to better understand Canberra’s core values, exercise greater reciprocity and rehearse two very important English words; battle stations.
First, the term conservatism refers to Australia’s attachment to out-of-date values and institutions, “old world” alliances and a backward looking search for a sense of safety, security and stability.
Second, unilateralism refers to Australia’s preference for tackling regional and bilateral issues through unilateral policies and actions. Interestingly, Canberra’s conservatism prefigures its rejection of multilateralism; dictating that Australia will continue to prefer and prioritize obsolete far-flung security arrangements over newer regional alignments that are more inclusive, comprehensive, innovative and relevant to its constantly evolving strategic environment. An over-reliance on trans-Atlantic powers heavily invested and entangled in Middle East affairs dictates that strategic interests in the immediate region will be addressed autonomously.
Some notable examples of Australian unilateralism regarding Indonesia include; (1) the granting of asylum to 46 Papuans arriving by boat in 2006, (2) the cutting off of beef supplies ahead of Ramadhan due to animal rights issues in 2011, (3) the placement of US troops in Darwin in 2011, (4) Australian plans to purchase boats directly from local Indonesian fishermen (as if Indonesia was an Australian province) in 2011, and (5) the latest Operation Sovereign Border repeatedly entering Indonesian waters and violating territorial sovereignty.
Despite their bilateral effects, Australian policies and actions were consistently made absent any consultation with its Indonesian counterpart.
Last, interventionism refers to Australia’s unapologetic preference for interference and intervention into the domestic affairs of other countries, both through blatant and subtle forms of violence.
In the same way that conservatism produces unilateralism, unilateralism begets interventionism: relying entirely on one’s own power makes rational thinking “survivalist”, and everything then becomes framed in Manichean extremes of “live or die”, “good or evil”, “devastation here or bringing the war there”, “closed borders or a flood of immigrants” and “turn back the boats or be forced into one sailing back to Britain”.
This was understandably the same “survival mode” thought characterizing US thought in the wake of the devastating 9/11 tragedy — what could be called the “lonely power” syndrome; a sense of total abandonment, helplessness and distrust of others in the fight to survive, let alone provide safety, security and stability.
Some notable examples of Australian interventionism affecting Indonesia include; (1) the military intervention against Indonesia during Konfrontasi in Sarawak between 1964-1966, (2) Australian-led intervention into East Timor in 1999, (3) unapologetic spying into Indonesia’s inner circle as revealed in 2013 and (4) repeated breaches of Indonesian territorial sovereignty during Operation Sovereign Borders.
For Australians reading this article and finding themselves wondering “are we then supposed to do nothing?” I must stress that interventionism is not a policy preference; it is a mental inability to imagine policies and courses of action outside the extremes of intervention and inaction, despite the availability of numerous middle-ground alternatives.
Globally, Australia’s staunch alliance with the US makes it one of the most recognizable faces of global interventionism, and as evidenced by the Bali and Australian Embassy bombings, a magnet for terrorist attacks. Furthermore, the presence of US military assets in the country makes Australia a prime target for a nuclear attack should a direct US-China military conflict break out.
Regionally, interventionism characterizes Australia’s engagement with its immediate neighbors. Canberra maintains a developmental aid “choke hold” on Papua New Guinea, and is establishing developmental-cum-espionage missions into Indonesia’s Papua provinces.
Australia’s unilateral and regional grandstanding tendencies in the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) have offended several of its member states and spurred the development of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) as an alternative and preferable regional political body — for the simple, obvious and understandable reason that it excludes Australia. Since 2006, Fiji has been engaged in an open row with Australia and expelled Australian diplomats in 2009 for meddling in Fiji’s internal affairs and for lobbying hard against Fiji-led regional initiatives.
Today, Timor Leste is bringing Australia to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on charges of unethical spying, intervention and the rigging of the Timor Gap negotiations in Canberra’s favor. By standing up to Australian interventionism, the small nations of Fiji and Timor Leste have exhibited outsize mettle. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for Indonesia under President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
In summary, Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders is no outlier; it is the norm, the rule, and the epitome of contemporary Australian foreign and security policy thought (blunders). The fact that a military conflict might be looming in the future is deeply distressing, but it would be much better for the Garuda of Indonesia to enter it screeching, clawing and biting wholeheartedly than to just passively endure injury.
The fact that Yudhoyono has directed the ambassador to return to Canberra, bending over backwards to “normalize” Australian relations, indicates that Indonesian sovereignty comes with a price tag, and a rather cheap one.
In dealing with Australia, the incoming Indonesian leadership needs to better understand Canberra’s core values, exercise greater reciprocity and rehearse two very important English words; battle stations.
_____________
The writer is executive director of the Marthinus Academy in Jakarta.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.