Military (security) approaches, development, and so-called negative public views of this group.
The government is reluctant to mention OPM. This is because it indicates the state recognizes the existence of Papuan independence fighters.
The government originally called them an armed group. The title was changed to an armed civilian group.
Then armed criminal groups, armed civilian criminal groups, and now there are plans to categorize OPM as a terrorist organization.
This plan was conveyed by the Head of the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT), Police Commissioner General Boy Rafli Amar during a hearing with Commission III of the Indonesian Parliament in Jakarta, earlier this week.
Also Read: BNPT is reviewing the status of TPNPB OPM
The statement of the former Papua Police Chief has been opposed by various parties. Director of the Democracy Alliance for Papua, Latifah Anum Siregar, reminded the government to be more careful in providing definitions.
"Yes, in my opinion, I'm sorry, maybe the government has lost its mind, how to handle [OPM]," said Anum Siregar to Jubi, Thursday (25/3/2021).
The definition of terrorism in Law Number 5 of 2018 concerning the crime of terrorism is very broad. Allows anyone to be categorized as terrorism. However, to label the OPM as a terrorism group must be considered properly.
According to Anum, it must be seen more clearly because the criminal act of terrorism is not yet clear in terms of its definition and scope.
Read also: BEM Uncen rejects the proposal that TPNPB and OPM be classified as terrorists
He is of the opinion that there is a contradiction in the law. For example Article 5 which states "The Crime of Terrorism as regulated in this Law must be considered not a political crime, and can be extradited or requested for mutual assistance as regulated in the provisions of laws and regulations."
"We know that the resistance in TPNPB / OPM has differences with terrorist groups. TPNPB / OPM has one goal. Namely political aspirations or independence. That's one of the differences, "he said.
Meanwhile, terrorist groups, said a member of the Papua Peace Network, have personal or group goals. Neither is the location. TPNPB / OPM only carried out actions in the Land of Papua.
Although in other places, including in some countries they have representatives. However, the main objective is towards the Land of Papua.
"TPNPB / OPM does not have personal goals. Their goal for large groups is to fight for independent political aspirations. The goals are different, "he said.
He is of the opinion, if you read the general explanation of the Law on terrorism, it is stated that the attacks on the population were random and not selected. So far, the OPM has carried out selective attacks against certain parties.
For example, security forces or civilians and facilities given certain definitions. The civilians who were attacked were considered prying eyes.
"Apart from that, we indeed condemn attacks on civilians. But in that context they provide a definition. If the terrorists were not, it could be randomly, not selected. The definition in the terrorist law itself mentions that, so there are differences, "he said.
Laurenzus Kadepa, a member of the commission on government, politics, law and human rights at the DPR Papua, stated the same thing.
"I think maybe the government has lost its way. I lost my mind in resolving the Papua problem and this was encouraged [to label the OPM as a terrorism group], ”said Kadepa.
Also read: Categorizing OPM as terrorism is not a solution to reducing conflict in Papua
The government's effort to study the designation of OPM as a terrorism group, said Kadepa, will in fact raise questions from many parties.
Not only those who are in Papua or those who have been pushing for peace in Papua, the international world will also question this.
"There will be questions, whether the government can no longer handle the existence of OPM, so that they want to be categorized as a terrorist group," he said.
The categorization of the OPM as a terrorist group may be viewed by the government as a way to "tame" a number of countries that have supported the struggle for independence for Papua.
Because in the international world, terrorism has no place. Almost all countries in the world say they reject the existence of terrorism.
"Meanwhile, if it is called a freedom fighter, for example the OPM, there are various countries that have expressed their support. Because they consider it part of human rights. Their representatives abroad are even accepted as citizens of certain countries, "he said.
Deputy coordinator for the Advocacy Division of KontraS, Arif Nur Fikri, is of the opinion that the broad definition of terrorism in the Law on the crime of terrorism poses a threat to all groups. Because the government can interpret it on its own.
He has criticized the breadth of the definition of terrorism since the beginning of the discussion on the revision of Law Number 15 of 2003 concerning the Eradication of Criminal Acts of Terrorism, to become Law Number 5 of 2018.
"This time it is OPM [which will be categorized as terrorism]. In the future, maybe other groups, "said Arief.
For example, parties who criticize the government or community groups who commit violence. Whether it is based on religion or socio-politics, it can also be said to be a terror organization
Amnesty International Indonesia Executive Director Usman Hamid said classifying the OPM as a terrorism organization would not end human rights abuses against Papuans. Especially what the security forces allegedly did.
There are also concerns that the terrorist label against the OPM will be used as an excuse to limit the freedom of expression and assembly of indigenous Papuans.
Also read: Ligia Giay: Papuans don't need to prove that they are not OPM
In Jakarta, Komnas HAM Commissioner Amiruddin Al Rahab also reminded BNPT not to be reckless in assessing the conditions in Papua, by including OPM in a terrorist organization.
“Indeed, many victims have fallen in Papua, and this is a serious problem in Papua. However, the category of OPM as a terrorism organization is not the right solution, ”said Amiruddin Al Rahab.
Komnas HAM RI said Amiruddin would immediately communicate with Boy Rafli Amar. His party felt the need to further question the discourse on categorizing OPM as a terrorism organization.
Komnas HAM is of the view that now the best way to resolve the conflict in Papua is to uphold human rights and respect human rights by all parties.
“Don't be too emotional. Must find a more appropriate solution. From the perspective of Komnas HAM, yes, with the enforcement of human rights and respect for human rights by all parties, "said Amiruddin. (*)
Editor: Angela Flassy
—————————————
3) Jokowi is a ‘hero’ for Myanmar, what about justice for the Papuans?
By APR editor -
By Kristianto Galuwo in Jayapura
The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) has responded to comments by the President of the Republic of Indonesia, Joko Widodo, who recently condemned violence by the military junta against pro-democracy protesters in Myanmar.
The executive director of the ULMWP in Papua, Markus Haluk, said that the Papuan people also strongly condemned the actions of the Myanmar military junta which had seized power by violating the principles of democracy and human rights of the Myanmar people.
“We condemn the anti-democratic military action of Myanmar, that is the principle of the people of West Papua,” he said.
“The West Papuans reject the Indonesian and American governments which had been anti-decolonisation by the Dutch government towards the West Papuans since 1963. The West Papuans oppose violence against anyone.”
Haluk said that while watching President Jokowi’s calls over the situation in Myanmar he had felt upset and angry because the Indonesian government had made the public question its democratic principles.
The Indonesian government condemned Myanmar’s military but at the same time the government’s actions against Papua were anti-humanitarian and anti-democratic.
“Honestly, I was angry, emotional, upset, but also I laughed out loud.
‘The problem in your backyard’
“You always talk about democracy, human rights, being a hero for those over there, but what about those in front of your eyes – the problem in your backyard is the problem of Papua,” Haluk said.
“What did President Jokowi do [to solve Papuan conflict]? Has he finished [the Papuan conflict] with 11 visits? Has he finished [the Papuan conflict) with building the Port Numbay Red Bridge?
“Is it by holding PON XX [National Sports Week in October 2021 in Papua] and building facilities with a value of trillions of rupiah? Is it by sending TNI/POLRI [Indonesian military and police] troops from outside Papua?” he said.
Haluk said that all that Jakarta had done would never resolve the political conflict between West Papua and the Indonesian government for the past 58 years – 1963-2021.
The Indonesian government must think about concrete steps to resolve the crisis.
“I convey to President Jokowi that now is the time for him to talk about Myanmar and it is indeed time to resolve political conflicts and human rights violations, crimes against humanity that continue to increase in West Papua,” he said.
Haluk said there were several concrete steps that President Jokowi could take.
President must honour promises
The President must fulfil his promise to the chair of the UN Human Rights Council to come to West Papua.
“That is in accordance with President Jokowi’s promise to the chair of the UN Human Rights Council in February 2018 in Jakarta.”
He said the president must also fulfil his promise in 2015 that foreign journalists would be allowed to freely enter Papua. Not only journalists, but also for all international communities to visit Papua.
“Allow access for international journalists, foreign diplomats, academics, members of the senate and congress as well as the international community to visit West Papua,” he said.
Meanwhile, Selpius Bobi, an activist for the victims of March 16, 2006, said last week that the Indonesian government had never stopped suppressing the freedom of indigenous Papuans.
The events that put him in prison 15 years ago were still ongoing. He said it was better for the state to admit its mistakes in West Papua.
“The Indonesian state must courageously, honestly and openly acknowledge to the public the deadly scenario behind the March 16, 2006 tragedy which it was responsible for and apologise to the victims,” he said.
Freeport clash and tragedy
Three policemen and an airman were killed and 24 other people wounded during a clash with Papuan students who had been demanding the closure of PT Freeport’s Grasberg mine.
Indonesia committed violence against the Papuan people to take away its natural wealth.
“We declare that PT Freeport Indonesia must be closed and let us negotiate between the United States, Indonesia and West Papua as responsibility and compensation for the West Papuan people who were sacrificed because of the unilateral cooperation agreement related to mining exploitation,” he said.
He also urged President Jokowi to immediately stop the crimes that were rampant in West Papua.
“Stop violence, stop military operations, stop sending TNI-POLRI, stop kidnappings and killings, stop stigmatisation and discrimination, stop arbitrary arrest and imprisonment for West Papuan human rights activists, and immediately withdraw non-organic troops from the Land of Papua, revoke the Papua Special Autonomy Law and stop the division of the province in the Land of Papua.”
This article has been translated by a Pacific Media Watch project contributor.
--------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.