2) Insight: Creating new Papuan provinces without input would add to conflict
3) Under Widodo’s watch, press freedom in Papua lowest in the country
----------------------------------------------------
1) A controversial land sale in New Zealand has met with disapproval from the West Papua solidarity movement.
1:47 pm on 6 November 2019
Johnny Blades Johnny Blades, RNZ Pacific Journalist, johnny.blades@rnz.co.nz
An example of deforestation in West Papua. Photo: Mighty Earth
The government has decided to allow Japanese firm Pan Pac to purchase 22,000ha of land without any scrutiny from the Overseas Investment Office, or OIO.
The West Papua Action Auckland group has expressed its objections in a letter to the Minister of Conservation and Land Information, Eugenie Sage.
The group has zeroed in on the firm's links to Korindo, a forestry and palm oil conglomerate with a controversial record in Indonesian-ruled West Papua.
Korindo has been criticised by environmental groups for forest clearance and displacement of indigenous West Papuan communities.
Last month, when the Pan Pac purchase came to light, Ms Sage was compelled to defend the sale proceeding without scrutiny from the OIO.
She said Pan Pac was well established in New Zealand and could add value to forestry exports from the country.
"The approval means hundreds of jobs will be retained by enabling Pan Pac to secure its wood supply for its high value wood exports," Ms Sage said.
Responding to West Papua Action Auckland's concern, the minister said she was aware of the concerns regarding the destruction of forests in West Papua.
"Destruction of indigenous forest anywhere in the world is unacceptable when we are faced with a global biodiversity crisis," she told RNZ Pacific.
"In my capacity as a Green MP, I'd note the Green Party's long history of standing up for West Papua and raising concerns about the destructive nature of the palm oil industry."
However, Maire Leadbeater and Catherine Delahunty of West Papua Action Auckland wrote that destruction of the world's third largest rainforest in New Guinea was contributing to what they called 'slow genocide' of West Papuans.
"In West Papua forest clearance is inevitably followed by the introduction of palm oil plantations. For the local people this means a loss of their essential source of food and shelter."
Although the minister said "high-quality overseas investment in forestry" would support the government's One Billion Trees programme, according to West Papua Action Auckland "plantation forestry is controversial and its carbon benefits are limited".
Korindo under the spotlight
Meanwhile, the Forest Stewardship Council, a global certification body for responsible forest management, this week released findings from a two-year investigation into Korindo Group prompted by a complaint filed by the NGO Mighty Earth.
The complaint relates to environmental destruction and alleged human rights abuses committed by Korindo in Papua and Maluku in Indonesia.
Despite significant redactions, the findings show Korindo destroyed over 30,000 hectares of rainforest in the past five years "while systematically manipulating and underpaying indigenous landowners".
It also said the Korean/Indonesian conglomerate repeatedly failed to obtain the free, prior, and informed consent of local indigenous communities to development on their lands.
Pastor Anselmus Amo from SKP-KAMe Meruake, a Papuan human rights group in Papua province, said Korindo was not taking its corporate social responsibility seriously.
"Korindo has destroyed community lands and livelihoods without peoples' consent, robbed communities of their natural resources, subjected people to violence and intimidation, and polluted their rivers - all while hiring mainly workers from outside Papua," he said.
"FSC should consult directly with affected communities to better understand Korindo's egregious actions and the communities' views on what fair compensation and remediation measures would be. We stand ready to help resolve this long-standing conflict."
As a result of the findings, the FSC's Complaints Panel recommended that Korindo be disassociated from the council due to its violations of Traditional and Human Rights.
Despite this recommendation, the FSC Board decided to reach a form of compromise with Korindo on improvement and remediation measures.
It has said that Korindo's continued association with the FSC was dependent on the company complying with requirements towards social and environmental reparations and remedy.
Included in these requirements is a moratorium on land clearing across all Korindo's operations and commodities in Indonesia.
——————
2) Insight: Creating new Papuan provinces without input would add to conflict
Septinus George Saa
- Birmingham, UK / Wed, November 6 2019 / 12:16 am
In its second term, President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo’s government should learn crucial lessons from the political actions taken in Papua and in the rest of the country, led by students. Among other things, they had raised the issue of racism against Papuans, objected to the addition of troops in Papua, demanded the release of activists, that human rights violations be resolved and demanded the end of the impunity enjoyed by the alleged murderers among the security personnel — apart from demanding a referendum for Papua as a peaceful solution to chronic grievances. These also include their sense of marginalization and the extractive investments of the members of Indonesia’s political elite.
Our reform movement is still young, yet Jokowi’s second term has already entrusted questionable figures from the authoritarian New Order era with strategic positions. Those of us from Papua have become increasingly distrustful of the political double standards applied in Papua — notably the lower awareness of leaders and politicians of the need to take into account the views of Papuans, compared to those of non-Papuan citizens.
The ideology of Papua Merdeka (Free Papua) continues to gain support from Papuans. For Papuans themselves, “development” from the 1960s to 2019 had started with various military operations that killed hundreds of thousands of Papuans in the land of their ancestors, pushed by the political elite without strong local foundations.
This view was strengthened this year as Indonesia’s leaders have now given the green light to even more new provinces and regencies besides the existing Papua and West Papua. Reports say there might be five new provinces based on seven customary areas — according to the mapping of the previous Dutch colonial administration.
As a member of a younger generation, I share the sense that our ideals of a participatory political culture seem so distant and alien. A government of this day and age should not be imposing a patronizing political culture under which Papuans are not considered citizens who are aware of the political system, who are able to participate in politics..
Worse, Papuans are also considered to have little knowledge of the processes for offering input to government, including requests and support, or about its output, including laws and policies. That Papuans are considered citizens who are clueless about participating in politics is reflected in the plans for the new provinces and regencies in Papua, which are dangerous for Indonesia’s future in Papua.
Actually, Papuans are fully aware of the impacts of Jakarta’s politics. The establishment of West Papua, for example, clearly reflected power struggles over the potentially lucrative posts of governor and regents. It was followed by a fairly sudden increase in the non-Papuan population, as well as an increase of land clearing and illegal logging.
My proposed solution is very simple. First, creating new provinces and regions may indeed be a government effort to boost the Papuan economy through the stimulant of government funds to the new regions. However, the establishment of the new regions must take place through participatory politics involving wide consultation with Papuan communities.
Without such participation, resistance from Papuans will rise everywhere, which is already evident in recent statements by local political leaders. What with the still-popular ideology of Papua Merdeka, such efforts to create new regions would only be rejected on the basis that Papuans would only gain more suffering and marginalization in their own land.
Another reason for the rejection might be that a democratic Indonesia that should champion and protect its indegineous people is only a capitalist entity seeking quick solutions to drive economic growth.
This perception has grown from the large-scale campaigns to attract investors, particularly to Papua’s extractive sector, while Papuans are part of the global indigenous community that has experienced first hand the meaning of national and foreign investment: frequent dislocation from their homes.
When this happens, whatever protests will arise will collide with the security forces of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, the “NKRI” that citizens consider must be defended at all costs. More victims will fall, worsening Indonesia’s track record on human rights violations against Papuans. Jokowi and Jakarta’s elite should take such factors into account when forming policies, such as those for new regions in Papua.
I agree with Papua Governor Lukas Enembe who stated, “Don’t teach us, we defend NKRI all-out,” as quoted by suarapapua.com on Aug. 24. The governor obviously understands the roots of chronic conflicts and he would agree that new regions would only incite more polemics and conflicts that native Papuans never win. Making new regions is not a “win-win solution” for Papuans; it is a “lose-lose” situation as long as Jakarta and President Jokowi continue the same approach: subjectively deciding what’s best for Papuans.
Jokowi’s leadership must prioritize empowerment of Papuans as decision-makers with full support either through funding or other mechanisms. Potential conflicts of political interest in Papua could lead Papuans to seek further intervention by the President in their affairs.
While the President seeks to reap sympathy and genuine support from Papuans, despite the much remaining work and the plentiful, unresolved past sins of the state against Papuans, Pak Jokowi can start a new chapter in Papuans’ lives by refusing to be a leader with an autocratic and transactional style — and instead encourage the free will of Papuans. Pak Jokowi must now lead with a democratic and transformative style.
Papuan scientist, research associate with the Mason Institute of Tribology, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom; winner of First Step to Noble Prize in Physics 2004.
——————————————————
3) Under Widodo’s watch, press freedom in Papua lowest in the country
CNN Indonesia – November 4, 2019
Jakarta – The 2019 Press Freedom Index in Papua is still in the lowest position out of Indonesia’s 34 provinces. The Press Freedom Index for Papua stands at 66.56 or “slightly free”, or only one level above “almost free”.
This was based on results of the 2019 Press Freedom Index survey which was presented by the Press Council in Jakarta on Monday November 4.
The Press Freedom Index uses a scale of 1-100 with a higher score or a score in a range of 90-100 being categorised as “free”.
Based on the Press Freedom Index by province, Papua is in last position, although the index for Papua improved slightly this year from only 59.30 in 2018.
The province which obtained the highest score this year was Southeast Sulawesi with a score of 84.84 followed by Aceh (82.85), Central Kalimantan (80.94), Riau (79.82) and North Kalimantan (78,78).
Press Council member Asep Setiawan stated that the press freedom score for Papua is still categories as “almost free” and this cannot be separated from the social, political and security situation which is still categorised as critical.
“Because what is shown by this index is that in general Papua is still ranked as the lowest”, said Setiawan after presenting the 2019 Press Freedom Index survey results in Jakarta on Monday.
Many human rights organisations have criticised the administration of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo for not allowing broad access for journalists to report in Papua. Over the last five years, alleged human rights violations have continued to occur in Papua.
Setiawan stated that an assessment of press freedom in the land of the Cendrawasih, as Papua is known, can be seen from the three classifications used in the survey, namely, the political and physical environment, the economic environment and the legal environment.
For the physical and political environment, said Setiawan, the situation is still critical making the work of journalists difficult. These difficulties are caused by security forces as well as members of the public.
Unfavorable conditions
Setiawan stated that the economic environment is not very different. The ownership of companies and prosperity are not on par with other provinces.
“Finally the legal environment, the legal issues are related to threats against press freedom. This is also something which is an indicator in Papua, and it’s still not favourable”, said Setiawan.
Because of this therefore, Setiawan said that the government needs to develop press freedom and the mass media in Papua by providing access for journalistic work. Openness towards the press will assist journalists in understanding the social and political situation in society.
“So if access to information by journalists and the mass media on the political situation is high, then it will actually provide a positive impact on the social, political and economic situation”, he said.
Setiawan stated that it is important for the central government, the regional government and the security forces to provide the broadest possible access to reporting in Indonesia’s easternmost province.
“What for? A high index depicts press freedom, which at the same time has a correlation with democracy and the economy. That’s what’s important”, he said.
The 2019 Press Freedom Index used a quantitative and qualitative approach. For the quantitative approach face to face interviews with expert respondents with a questioner were used. The qualitative approach used focus discussion groups with specialist sources.
The Press Freedom Index survey covered three aspects, namely physical and political, the economic environment and the legal environment. There were 20 indicators used in the survey involving 408 specialist resource people as respondents in 34 provinces.
[Translated by James Balowski. The original title of the article was “Di Era Jokowi, Indeks Kemerdekaan Pers di Papua Terendah”.]
------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.