1) Why dialogue matters for Papua
2) Freeport pushes for contract signing
3) Australian help for West Papua
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/07/why-dialogue-matters-papua.html
1) Why dialogue matters for Papua
Mangadar Situmorang, Bandung | Opinion | Tue, October 07 2014, 10:09 AM
In his presidential election campaign, president-elect Joko “Jokowi” Widodo deemed the problems in Papua to be rooted in the misperceptions of the central government.
It is clear, therefore, that dialogue is the most appropriate way to correct them and to build a common perception to find a solution.
There are convincing arguments to justify the need for dialogue on Papua, including the tradition of musyawarah, or deliberation, one of the five principles of the Pancasila state ideology.
However, the central government is inconsistent in implementing it when it comes to the Papua issue, leaving the problem to protract.
While the government needs to be continuously reminded about its responsibility to address the issue of Papua, there are at least three reasons to encourage Jokowi to convene a dialogue about the region.
First, Jokowi is personally committed to resolving any problem with dignity. Known to have succeeded in dealing with complex social and economic quagmires when leading the city of Surakarta and the capital, Jokowi’s personal strategy was to ask disputing parties to talk and find a common solution.
This is a strategic approach proposed also by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), which said “the process is not just about sitting around a table, but changing the way people talk, think and communicate with one another”. Recognition of differences and empathy toward one another are essential elements to generate a productive and constructive dialogue.
Adding to Jokowi’s commitment is his partner Jusuf Kalla, who has proven he was capable of bringing peace and reconciliation to the conflict zones of Poso, Central Sulawesi and Aceh. Apart from his personal political assets and access, Kalla has shown creativity in seeking a way out in the face of deadlock. He is known to offer rational choices for disputing parties to continue dialogue and produce agreements.
Second, Jokowi’s and Kalla’s victory in the last presidential election was officially confirmed by both the General Elections Commission (KPU) and the Constitutional Court (MK), which confirmed the victory of people who support democratic consolidation in Indonesia.
Although some voters were still influenced by money politics, mobilization or even intimidation, many more cast their votes for freedom, fairness and integrity.
Shortly, the Jokowi-Kalla victory must be perceived as indicative of a growing number of democratic constituencies.
This clearly means that, according to democratic principles, all kinds of disputes and difficulties should be better dealt with peacefully and with dignity.
Third, the problems in Papua also include historical questions and human rights violations in the past that could not be overcome merely by economic development.
To a large part of Papuans who show resistance and continuously rebel against the government, the historical problem is of primary and great importance.
The process of integrating the region into the unitary state was seen not only as unjust and unfair according to internationally accepted principles, but was also followed by a series of violent acts undertaken by Indonesian governments and security agencies against those who questioned and rejected the 1969 polling result (Pepera).
Besides economic programs, successive governments applied the security approach by deploying huge numbers of military forces that were beyond the control of the civilian government in Jakarta and Jayapura, or of other civil society organizations, including the press.
Challenges to dialogue in Papua may come from different corners. First, inner circles within successive governments have perceived that the historical question of Papuan integration has been settled and is thus unquestionable.
As such, any kind of dialogue is seen as useless or would be even viewed as jeopardizing Indonesia’s long-standing position and territorial integration. Such a view is totally incorrect and groundless. In contrast, a dialogue has to be seen as a way to strengthen the legality and legitimacy of Papuan integration.
Another more technical argument in questioning the significance of dialogue is due to the problem of representation within Papua’s widely diverse tribal, cultural and political associations that don’t have any single hierarchical leadership.
As shown in the case of Aceh, this adds to the reluctance and to a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of a dialogue on the part of the government.
But, the second and apparently most stiff resistance comes from the military. To many scholars the Indonesian Military (TNI), after having concluded military and security operations in Aceh, are now seeing Papua as their main battlefield — a region very rich with natural resources, but one that is claimed as presenting the most serious threat to national integration.
The TNI, to a certain degree, has been successful in keeping Aceh as an integral part of Indonesia. Their role in maintaining Papua is not in question, but it is very clear that their positive role should be included in the dialogue process.
In many parts of the world, like in Lebanon, Indonesia’s military has played a role in keeping, making and building peace by winning the hearts and minds of conflicting parties.
Dialogue in Papua is meant to win the hearts and minds of Papuans and the TNI is an indispensable party to the process and is necessary to make it fruitful.
It is clear, therefore, that dialogue is the most appropriate way to correct them and to build a common perception to find a solution.
There are convincing arguments to justify the need for dialogue on Papua, including the tradition of musyawarah, or deliberation, one of the five principles of the Pancasila state ideology.
However, the central government is inconsistent in implementing it when it comes to the Papua issue, leaving the problem to protract.
While the government needs to be continuously reminded about its responsibility to address the issue of Papua, there are at least three reasons to encourage Jokowi to convene a dialogue about the region.
First, Jokowi is personally committed to resolving any problem with dignity. Known to have succeeded in dealing with complex social and economic quagmires when leading the city of Surakarta and the capital, Jokowi’s personal strategy was to ask disputing parties to talk and find a common solution.
This is a strategic approach proposed also by the UN Development Programme (UNDP), which said “the process is not just about sitting around a table, but changing the way people talk, think and communicate with one another”. Recognition of differences and empathy toward one another are essential elements to generate a productive and constructive dialogue.
Adding to Jokowi’s commitment is his partner Jusuf Kalla, who has proven he was capable of bringing peace and reconciliation to the conflict zones of Poso, Central Sulawesi and Aceh. Apart from his personal political assets and access, Kalla has shown creativity in seeking a way out in the face of deadlock. He is known to offer rational choices for disputing parties to continue dialogue and produce agreements.
Second, Jokowi’s and Kalla’s victory in the last presidential election was officially confirmed by both the General Elections Commission (KPU) and the Constitutional Court (MK), which confirmed the victory of people who support democratic consolidation in Indonesia.
Although some voters were still influenced by money politics, mobilization or even intimidation, many more cast their votes for freedom, fairness and integrity.
Shortly, the Jokowi-Kalla victory must be perceived as indicative of a growing number of democratic constituencies.
This clearly means that, according to democratic principles, all kinds of disputes and difficulties should be better dealt with peacefully and with dignity.
Third, the problems in Papua also include historical questions and human rights violations in the past that could not be overcome merely by economic development.
To a large part of Papuans who show resistance and continuously rebel against the government, the historical problem is of primary and great importance.
The process of integrating the region into the unitary state was seen not only as unjust and unfair according to internationally accepted principles, but was also followed by a series of violent acts undertaken by Indonesian governments and security agencies against those who questioned and rejected the 1969 polling result (Pepera).
Besides economic programs, successive governments applied the security approach by deploying huge numbers of military forces that were beyond the control of the civilian government in Jakarta and Jayapura, or of other civil society organizations, including the press.
Challenges to dialogue in Papua may come from different corners. First, inner circles within successive governments have perceived that the historical question of Papuan integration has been settled and is thus unquestionable.
As such, any kind of dialogue is seen as useless or would be even viewed as jeopardizing Indonesia’s long-standing position and territorial integration. Such a view is totally incorrect and groundless. In contrast, a dialogue has to be seen as a way to strengthen the legality and legitimacy of Papuan integration.
Another more technical argument in questioning the significance of dialogue is due to the problem of representation within Papua’s widely diverse tribal, cultural and political associations that don’t have any single hierarchical leadership.
As shown in the case of Aceh, this adds to the reluctance and to a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of a dialogue on the part of the government.
But, the second and apparently most stiff resistance comes from the military. To many scholars the Indonesian Military (TNI), after having concluded military and security operations in Aceh, are now seeing Papua as their main battlefield — a region very rich with natural resources, but one that is claimed as presenting the most serious threat to national integration.
The TNI, to a certain degree, has been successful in keeping Aceh as an integral part of Indonesia. Their role in maintaining Papua is not in question, but it is very clear that their positive role should be included in the dialogue process.
In many parts of the world, like in Lebanon, Indonesia’s military has played a role in keeping, making and building peace by winning the hearts and minds of conflicting parties.
Dialogue in Papua is meant to win the hearts and minds of Papuans and the TNI is an indispensable party to the process and is necessary to make it fruitful.
The writer is the dean of the faculty of social and political sciences at the Parahyangan Catholic University in Bandung, and the coordinator for the Academic Forum for Peaceful Papua (Forum Akademisi untuk Papua Damai).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2014/10/07/freeport-pushes-contract-signing.html
2) Freeport pushes for contract signing
Raras Cahyafitri, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta | Business | Tue, October 07 2014, 7:33 AM
PT Freeport Indonesia hopes to sign a new mining contract before President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s term ends in two weeks.
R. Sukhyar, the director general for mineral and coal at the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry, said the local subsidiary of US copper and gold mining company Freeport McMoran called for that the draft of the contract amendment to be completed quickly.
“The company [Freeport] expects to sign the amended CoW [contract of work] before the new government takes office,” Sukhyar said on Monday following a meeting with the company’s president director, Rozik Soetjipto.
Last July, Freeport signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that highlights principal agreement on several issues. The items agreed to will then be put in the new contract of work (CoW).
The government is currently working on contract renegotiations with 107 mineral and coal companies to conform with the 2009 Mining Law. There are six major issues under renegotiation, which are adjustment in royalty and tax, divestment, the mining area size, continuity of operations after contract expiry, obligation of domestic processing as well as the obligation to use local goods and services.
Besides Freeport, the mineral and coal directorate general has also inked MoUs with other big companies such as nickel miner PT Vale Indonesia and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara. It has also secured principal agreement over amendments with major coal miners, such as PT Adaro Indonesia, PT Berau Coal, PT Kaltim Prima Coal and PT Arutmin Indonesia.
Sukhyar previously said that his office would likely complete the drafts of contract amendments of at least two companies, namely Vale Indonesia and Adaro Indonesia.
Sukhyar said he was optimistic that Adaro’s contract amendment would be completed as renegotiations with coal miners were relatively easy compared to those with mineral mining companies.
According to Sukhyar, Freeport’s draft contract amendment had reached 50 percent completion.
“Our team is working. Freeport has suggested that we prioritize the six issues under renegotiation. However, we also have to look at other issues. The amendment with Vale, for example, has concluded the six issues but there are several other issues. We also have to talk about force majeure or definition on the special mining permits,” Sukhyar said.
Freeport’s Rozik Soetjipto did not immediately respond to a comment request.
Out of 107 CoWs that need to be renegotiated, the mineral and coal office has signed MoUs with 78 firms, consisting of 21 mineral CoW holders and 57 coal contract of work (CCoW) holders.
MoUs with five more companies, consisting of one CoW holder and four CCoW holders, are expected to be signed on Tuesday.
The coal and mineral office has also pushed for principal agreement with seven coal miners that are subsidiaries of BHP Billiton.
Divestment of up to 51 percent of the parent company’s ownership is among the contentious issues being renegotiated with the companies, according to director for coal Bambang Tjahjono
R. Sukhyar, the director general for mineral and coal at the Energy and Mineral Resources Ministry, said the local subsidiary of US copper and gold mining company Freeport McMoran called for that the draft of the contract amendment to be completed quickly.
“The company [Freeport] expects to sign the amended CoW [contract of work] before the new government takes office,” Sukhyar said on Monday following a meeting with the company’s president director, Rozik Soetjipto.
Last July, Freeport signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that highlights principal agreement on several issues. The items agreed to will then be put in the new contract of work (CoW).
The government is currently working on contract renegotiations with 107 mineral and coal companies to conform with the 2009 Mining Law. There are six major issues under renegotiation, which are adjustment in royalty and tax, divestment, the mining area size, continuity of operations after contract expiry, obligation of domestic processing as well as the obligation to use local goods and services.
Besides Freeport, the mineral and coal directorate general has also inked MoUs with other big companies such as nickel miner PT Vale Indonesia and PT Newmont Nusa Tenggara. It has also secured principal agreement over amendments with major coal miners, such as PT Adaro Indonesia, PT Berau Coal, PT Kaltim Prima Coal and PT Arutmin Indonesia.
Sukhyar previously said that his office would likely complete the drafts of contract amendments of at least two companies, namely Vale Indonesia and Adaro Indonesia.
Sukhyar said he was optimistic that Adaro’s contract amendment would be completed as renegotiations with coal miners were relatively easy compared to those with mineral mining companies.
According to Sukhyar, Freeport’s draft contract amendment had reached 50 percent completion.
“Our team is working. Freeport has suggested that we prioritize the six issues under renegotiation. However, we also have to look at other issues. The amendment with Vale, for example, has concluded the six issues but there are several other issues. We also have to talk about force majeure or definition on the special mining permits,” Sukhyar said.
Freeport’s Rozik Soetjipto did not immediately respond to a comment request.
Out of 107 CoWs that need to be renegotiated, the mineral and coal office has signed MoUs with 78 firms, consisting of 21 mineral CoW holders and 57 coal contract of work (CCoW) holders.
MoUs with five more companies, consisting of one CoW holder and four CCoW holders, are expected to be signed on Tuesday.
The coal and mineral office has also pushed for principal agreement with seven coal miners that are subsidiaries of BHP Billiton.
Divestment of up to 51 percent of the parent company’s ownership is among the contentious issues being renegotiated with the companies, according to director for coal Bambang Tjahjono
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO1410/S00044/australian-help-for-west-papua.htm
Australian help for West Papua |
3) Australian help for West Papua
The Australia West Papua Association thanks the Australian government for endorsing a petition for greater journalistic access to the Papuan territory under Indonesian administration.
Australia's action is consistent with its legal obligations under Article 76 of the Charter of the United Nations for trust territories. We ask Prime Minister Abbott to fulfil Australia's obligation by asking Ban Ki-moon to put the United Nations issue of General Assembly Resolution 1752 on the agenda of the Trusteeship Council without further delay.
West Papua has been subjected to a foreign occupation since the General Assembly approved a Dutch request in 1962 for the United Nations to occupy and assume responsibility for West Papua as is allowed by articles 75 to 85 of the Charter of the United Nations. Despite objection by the Papuan community the United Nations has accepted an offer by Indonesia since 1963 to administrate the territory but has failed to monitor conditions in the territory as would be required by articles 85, 87, and 88 of the Charter of the United Nations if the international issue of General Assembly resolution 1752 were put on the agenda of the Trusteeship Council and acknowledged as an approval for trusteeship.
ENDS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.