-------------------------
https://en.tempo.co/read/1461476/former-papua-police-chief-speaks-on-the-adversity-to-defeat-kkb
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The Indonesian National Police (Polri) on Monday admits the challenges that makes it difficult for authorities to overcome the armed criminal groups (KKB) in Papua. The Head of police intelligence, Gen. Commissioner Paulus Waterpauw attributes the difficulties to the group’s dominating the local terrain.
“I would like to say that at this moment we are patient about future policies. Because it is truly difficult to handle them [the KKB] as they are able to control the terrain and everything,” said the police general on Monday, May 10.
He insisted that by labelling the armed criminal groups as terrorists the government will be able to trace individuals or organizations that fund the arms used by the groups to clash with Indonesian authorities. This would give a leverage for the antiterrorism squad Densus 88.
The former North Sumatra and Papua police chief frankly is bewildered by the financial abilities of the armed criminal groups as he said many of them are unemployed but are able to purchase weapons. But with the legal grounds under the antiterrorism law the government will be able to look into their sponsors and eliminate the link.
“It is truly weird for people with no regular income and does not work but are able to purchase pricey firearms and ammunition. Where does that come from?” he said while ensuring that the government’s official labeling of terrorists only applies to armed criminal groups.
Read: Prejudiced Term 'Papua Armed Criminal Group' No Longer Used: Govt
ANTARA
-----------------
2) ‘We are living in a war zone’: violence flares in West Papua as villagers forced to flee
Violence has flared in West Papua, with journalists and activists targeted, an internet blackout, and villagers forced to flee into the jungle.
Hundreds of additional Indonesian soldiers have been deployed to West Papua in the last month and thousands of people have reportedly been displaced in the Puncak regency.
The military crackdown in Puncak has escalated since the death of a senior Indonesia police chief in a shootout with the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) in late April.
President Joko Widodo told Indonesian media he had ordered security forces to “chase and arrest all rebels”, while Bambang Soesatyo, chairman of the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), told the government to “destroy them first. We will discuss human rights matters later.”
Lanikwe, a women’s community leader, from Wamena, near Puncak, said the situation for local people as a result of the crackdown was dire.
“Thousands are displaced in Puncak, five villages fled into the jungle. Health clinics and schools have been taken over by the military. Soldiers are everywhere. We are living in a war zone.”
“Internet was blocked two days before conflict in Puncak flared, the government said it’s a problem with the cable, but it also happened during the 2019 West Papuan Uprising,” she said.
The 2019 uprising was a peaceful demonstration against systemic racism following attacks on Papuan students in Surabaya.
On 9 May, a key grassroots activist involved in organising the protest, Victor Yeimo, was arrested for treason, sparking fears of further political arrests in the current crackdown.
Prominent West Papuan journalist Victor Mambor was targeted in an attack that saw his car vandalised after his reporting on the shooting deaths of two Indonesian teachers in Puncak April.
Speaking to the Guardian from Jayapura, Mambor said his publication tabloid jubi reported on the shooting by the TPNPB “differently to state media, who only quoted military and police.
“Civilians in Puncak said they often saw the teachers carrying guns and suspected they were military spies, which we reported. First there was online abuse on social media, then my car was destroyed in the night.”
Mambor’s lawyer Veronica Koman said this latest incident “is because of his reporting on Puncak, the current hotspot of conflict, in another episode of harassment against Papuan journalists. When you report stories not in line with the government’s version you’ll be attacked.”
Benny Wenda, of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and interim president of the provisional government formed in December, called Victor Mambor: “one of the bravest Papuans today, for reporting the Indonesian force’s actions. They have targeted him and his journalists many times, arresting, harassing, and beating them. They want to silence Victor so he can’t cover the military crackdown in Puncak.”
On 29 April, Papuan “armed criminal groups” were formally declared terrorists by Mahfud MD, Indonesia’s coordinating minister of political, legal and security affairs.
Amnesty International has criticised the designation of TPNPB as a terrorist group, saying: “The government should focus on investigating these cases and stopping extrajudicial killings and other human rights violations in Papua and West Papua by law enforcement officials, rather than focusing on the terrorist label.”
Koman called the terrorist label “vague and dangerous. Jakarta is declaring war in West Papua. Already many Papuans civilians accused of being freedom fighters are killed by the military. Now Indonesian forces have new licence to kill them – as terrorists.”
A 2020 report by UN special rapporteurs on the human rights of internally displaced persons states there are over 50,000 displaced Papuans in the highlands region, but this figure may be higher now.
The contested Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua, often referred to collectively as West Papua, share an island with Papua New Guinea.
Indonesia has controlled West Papua since invading in 1963 and formalising its annexation through the controversial, UN approved, ‘Act of Free Choice’. Security forces are accused of severe human rights violations during the occupation with an estimated 500,000 Papuans killed.
The Indonesian state has always maintained that the West Papuan provinces are an uncontested, indivisible part of the Republic of Indonesia.3)
On 29 April, the Indonesian government declared that all ‘armed criminal groups’ (KBB) and people and organisations affiliated with them
were terrorists. This includes groups like the West Papua National Liberation Army (TNPB) and the Free Papua Movement (OPM). According
to Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal, and Security Affairs Mahfud MD, the violence committed by these armed groups should be
considered acts of terrorism under Law No. 5 of 2018 on Counterterrorism.
Labelling the West Papuan resistance movement as ‘terrorists’ will have serious implications for the future of conflict resolution in West Papua. It is a term of stigma that can be used to further delegitimise the ongoing struggle for independence and obstruct the path to a peaceful resolution.
At the outset, it is important to note that the emergence of the West Papuan resistance movement – violent and non-violent – is rooted in pro-independence Papuans’ rejection of the way West Papua was integrated into Indonesia through the 1969 Act of Free Choice. There is a strong body of evidence to confirm that not only was the method of voting suspect – ‘consultation’ instead of one-person-one-vote – but also that violence and intimidation accompanied the vote, forcing the small group of Papuan representatives to vote in favour of merging with Indonesia.
Scholars and civil society have argued that past rights abuses in West Papua must be resolved through dialogue and a transitional justice mechanism. However, no Indonesian government has ever made moves to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission that might address West Papuans’ historical grievances.
Further, in international fora, Indonesia has consistently cited the 1969 Act of Free Choice to support its claims of sovereignty over West Papua. At the 75th Session of the UN General Assembly, for example, the Indonesian representative used the 1969 Act of Free Choice to stress that West Papua’s status as part of Indonesia was “final, irreversible and permanent”. The pejorative term ‘separatism’ was also used in response to criticism about the human rights situation in the region. In other words, Indonesia remains unapologetic about West Papua’s incorporation into the country – despite being well aware of the controversial manner in which it was done.
The decision to label Papuan armed groups as terrorists will complicate the peace process even further. Terrorism has always been an elusive concept. One reason is that it is a multi-faceted phenomenon that often overlaps with other forms of political violence. This means the term can be easily politicised to dismantle nationalist or separatist movements that do not actually use the tactics of terrorism.
Governments should therefore be very cautious and context-sensitive when making determinations on terrorist status. If not, they expose themselves to claims that decisions were driven by the state’s political interests. As Schmid puts it, the concept of terrorism is “a manmade construct and as such tends to reflect the interests of those who do the defining”.
For analytical purposes, the government’s decision to label a group terrorist is better evaluated by the academic consensus on what terrorism means. One of many things that differentiates terrorism from other political violence is that terrorism mainly targets civilians and non-combatants. But applying this definition is particularly problematic in the context of West Papua, where the truth can often be very hard to establish.
For example, in recent incidents when civilians have been killed by either the military or armed resistance groups, the military has argued that a person it shot dead was a member of a resistance group. On the other hand, the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) has argued that a person it has killed was a member of the military disguised as a civilian. And when the killer is unknown, either side tends to accuse the other of being responsible. This pattern prolongs conflict and threatens the lives and safety of innocent West Papuans.
The way that resistance movements operate in West Papua cannot be isolated from the security approach to the conflict taken by the government. Without independent investigation of acts of violence – by both sides – use of the terrorist label will only worsen the human rights crisis in West Papua. As DeAngelis notes, the common use of war metaphors in government discussions of terrorism can create an “us against them” mentality. War metaphors not only demand military action but also creates an impression that the state has a ‘clear enemy’ that it must eliminate to win.
In the conflict between the Indonesian security forces and West Papuan resistance groups Indonesia has been a violent actor that has repeatedly opted for militarisation over peaceful resolution. Many cases of human rights abuses by security forces remain unresolved, contributing to a situation of pervasive impunity in the region. According to Amnesty International, from January 2010 to February 2018, at least 69 extrajudicial killings were committed by the military and the police in West Papua. Between February 2018 and September 2020, Amnesty recorded another 47 cases of extrajudicial killings that resulted in the deaths of 96 people. The majority of those who died were killed by the military and police. In 82% of the cases where the military was the perpetrator, it has never been held accountable for its crimes.
With this situation in mind, the objectivity of the Indonesian government in labelling armed separatist groups as terrorists must be in doubt. A better approach would be to start a peaceful dialogue process and open an independent investigation, as West Papuans have been demanding for years.
The government is relying on the terrorist label to distract attention from the real issues raised by pro-independence West Papuans and human rights advocates: the need to redress past injustices and reveal the truth about West Papua’s incorporation into Indonesia.
The terrorist label is designed to reinforce stigma against the independence movement and delegitimise the whole reason for its existence, without looking into the validity of its grievances. It will be used to arbitrarily restrict civil liberties, which will be particularly harmful for non-violent organisations in Papua. It has the potential – and was no doubt designed – to further narrow public discourse, so the government version of the truth will prevail.
Deciding to label separatist groups as terrorists is a foolish move that does nothing to address the aspirations of West Papuans, and can only prolong the conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.