2) Special autonomy for Papua: The trickery of Jakarta's policy
4) Australia Has An Opportunity To Mediate The Conflict In West Papua
5) Wabu Papua Block Gold Mountain Sighting Worth More than IDR 220 T
LIFESTYLE
1) Arnold Ap: Papua’s lost cultural crusader gets long-delayed recognition
RAKA IBRAHIM THE JAKARTA POST Jakarta / Thu, September 2, 2021 / 02:00 pm
Nobody knows precisely how it all ended, but we know what came after. On April 26, 1984, the body of Arnold Ap was found riddled with bullets and stab wounds on a beach near Jayapura. He had been mysteriously detained for four months. His family was in hiding, his friends forced into silence or exile and his legacy lost in a blazing inferno.
His crime? Singing and keeping his people’s culture alive.
Now, almost four decades after his controversial murder, one of Papua’s most important cultural figures is being recognized by the wider public.
“For his time, he was a groundbreaking curator and artist,” said Ayos Purwoaji, a curator and researcher. “He moved beyond the boundaries of the museum, which was unusual for his contemporaries.”
Through his work as an anthropologist, curator and bandleader in the highly popular group Mambesak, Arnold Ap celebrated Papuan culture at a time when such expressions of indigenous pride could lead to arrest, intimidation and death. His short but storied career was marked by persistence, unusual but effective cultural tactics and, above all, a boundless love for his land and people.
Before long, though, his story turned into one of tragedy, violence and exile.
Celebrating Papuan identity
After a violent and hotly contested military operation, the Indonesian government under President Sukarno seized control of West Papua from Dutch rule in May 1963.
Human rights activist Carmel Budiardjo wrote in 2008 that not long after the seizure, a “huge bonfire” was erected in the main square of Jayapura. Symbols of Papuan life, including cultural artifacts and Papuan flags, were thrown into the inferno, while over ten thousand Papuans were brought in from the valleys to watch the ceremonial burning of “their colonial identity”.
Soon, indigenous political activities were banned and a “political quarantine” was imposed. In 1969, after an internationally controversial referendum, Papua voted to join Indonesia.
This was the world Arnold Clemens Ap saw as a young man. Then a geography student at Jayapura’s Cendrawasih University, his interest soon shifted to anthropology and Papua’s diverse cultures. He was a talented guitarist and a gifted storyteller, but most of all, he was a tireless scholar and a charismatic leader of his peers.
When Cendrawasih University opened its cultural museum, Loka Budaya, in 1973, Ap was quickly hired and eventually became its curator. In these early days Ap would depart to far-flung corners of Papua, sitting down with village elders and documenting each place’s traditional music, dance, sculpture and folklore.
“He would document everything,” said Ibiroma Wamla, an anthropologist, “local words of wisdom, lyrics and poetry, the process of building traditional houses and even how they make traditional boats.”
His findings impressed his peers. His house in Abepura became a hub for budding artists, weary travelers and Papua’s burgeoning intellectual scene.
On Aug. 5, 1978, he and Sam Kapissa gathered their peers and formed the band Mambesak, meaning bird of paradise in his native tongue, Biak. Along with original compositions, they would perform some of the traditional songs Ap documented in his wanderings, along with stories of Papua and its people. Then, Ap would recount traditional jokes and humorous stories common in Papua’s highlands, before a joyous song and dance routine broke out again.
Their popularity were bolstered further by their weekly radio show, Pelangi Budaya dan Pancaran Sastra, broadcast every Sunday on a local Jayapura station and hosted by a rotating cast of Mambesak members.
Beginning in 1978, the group recorded seven albums, released regularly and distributed through the then-novel medium of cassette. In 1981, with the support of Cendrawasih University, they also published four songbooks documenting traditional music from various parts of Papua.
Perhaps wary of the political climate at the time, Mambesak was rarely overtly critical in its music.
“Their songs would talk about protecting the forests, preserving traditional culture and even something seemingly trivial like imploring Papuans to keep eating sago,” Wamla noted.
That is not to say, however, that their work lacked a political dimension.
Sago, a traditional starchy root vegetable, was traditionally the staple food of many Papuans. The transition to eating rice, a West Indonesian staple that was foreign to Papua, symbolized to many Papuans a loss of connection with their ancestral roots and culture. By writing a song about sago, Mambesak managed to criticize what its members saw as Papuan cultural erasure by simply singing about food.
Ap’s work in this vein was both groundbreaking and wildly popular. But before long, it landed him in hot water.
Death of a performer
Papua, at the time, was a hotbed for separatist movements. Guerilla fighters from the Free Papua Movement (OPM) ravaged the countryside, ensuring a steady military presence and a tense atmosphere. By the 1980s, the tensions were high enough that the military began tracking down independence sympathizers in cities.
Mambesak, with their popular performances and albums, were a natural target. “Soeharto’s regime thought Arnold Ap and Mambesak were dangerous,” Ibiroma said. “[They thought] these cultural performances could gradually revive Papuan nationalism.”
Mambesak, and Ap in particular, were accused of fomenting revolutionary fervor. The authorities cracked down hard.
On Nov. 30, 1983, a day after Mambesak performed at the West Papuan governor’s hall, Arnold Ap was detained by members of Kopassandha, a precursor to the Army Special Forces (Kopassus). The rector of Cendrawasih University, once Ap’s most ardent supporter, quickly dismissed him as curator because of his arrest “on suspicion of subversive activities”.
For the following four months, Ap’s fate remained a mystery. His peers leaked news of his arrest to international media, leading to sporadic protests and condemnation that was quickly stamped out by authorities and national media. Perhaps wary of reprisals, Ap’s family were smuggled out of West Papua in February 1984. Rumors began circulating that Ap, along with four other detainees accused of sympathizing with the revolutionary cause, were being tortured and maltreated.
As Carmel Budiardjo wrote in Inside Indonesia, on April 14, 1984, he was seen on the grounds of Cendrawasih University being escorted by an officer. Soon after, the authorities announced that Ap had escaped from prison with four other detainees and that a regional manhunt was underway. He was labeled “extremely dangerous”, and authorities began pushing for Ap to be sentenced to life imprisonment or even death.
LIFESTYLE Arnold Ap: Papua’s lost cultural crusader gets long-delayed recognition
On April 21, an officer unlocked Ap’s cell door and ordered him and the other detainees out. The special forces then reportedly drove them to a coastal base camp, where one detainee escaped and saw the rest of the story unfold from his hiding place.
Eddy Mofu, a member of Mambesak, was, according to the detainee, struck on the head, stabbed in the neck and thrown into the sea. The others were told to swim out to a boat and eventually found shelter in a cave. A few days later, Ap emerged from his hiding spot to urinate. He was soon surrounded by elite troops and gunned down.
According to Budiardjo, there are conflicting accounts of what happened next. Some say he died. Others claim he made it to a nearby hospital, where he asked a nurse to deliver his wedding ring to his wife in exile.
A legacy of fire
“After Ap was murdered, a source informed me that military officers burned down his house and a majority of his archives,” Ayos said. The remaining members of Mambesak were either driven into exile or intimidated into silence. Ap’s family remained in hiding in Papua New Guinea for a while, before seeking sanctuary in the Netherlands, where they remain today. Ap’s legacy, it seemed, had been lost to history.
But his story and work somehow persisted. Journalist George Junus Aditjondro, who traveled extensively in Papua and struck up a close personal friendship with Ap, wrote about Mambesak in his book, Cahaya Bintang Kejora. Scholars like Frank Hubatka studied his curatorial approach, Cendrawasih University eventually republished his cassettes, and friends and family members held on to their archives and memories in private.
“It was a bit difficult to piece together an accurate timeline of his life and work,” said Ibiroma. “A lot of former Mambesak members were still traumatized and would refuse to be interviewed. The archives were scattered and incomplete, and a lot of writings were lost. We had to approach each former member one by one and slowly recreate his story.”
Ibiroma’s research eventually caught the eye of Ayos, a co-curator in this year’s Jogja Biennale arts exhibition. “Our focus this year is on Oceania as a sociopsychological zone that encompasses East Indonesia to Hawaii,” Ayos explained. “This region doesn’t just share similar cultural genes but also common social problems and solidarity.”
Their attention naturally turned to Papua, where a group of scholars at Cendrawasih University were hard at work reviving Ap’s legacy. “Beyond his accomplishments as a musician, he was also Papua’s first true curator,” Ayos said. “His curatorial approach blended art and cultural activism, moving away from art museums and confined exhibitions. Instead, he expressed his findings through music and performance.”
Collaborating with Cendrawasih University as a “docking program” partner, the Jogja Biennale aims to finally celebrate Ap’s legacy as a pioneering curator in East Indonesia. “In Indonesian curatorial studies, people like Ap are neglected,” Ayos said. “The history of Indonesian art is dominated by Javanese curators. Having people like Arnold Ap in the narrative will expand our horizons.”
Annual vigils still mark the dates of Mambesak’s formation and Arnold Ap’s death. “Arnold Ap is a cultural icon, but he was also someone who united the Papuan people through music,” Ibiroma said. “For him, no culture was superior or inferior. Each culture in a country completed and enhanced the others.” If Papua was to be truly a part of Indonesia, Ap believed, then its culture needed to thrive, not be suppressed.
“I think he deserves respect,” Ibiroma said. “And the government must admit that they were wrong to kill him.”
In the meantime, a joint team of personnel from the Indonesian Military (TNI) has continued to crack down on Papuan separatist terrorists operating in the area.
The XVIII/Kasuari Regional Military Command's spokesperson, Colonel Hendra Pesireron, disclosed that TNI soldiers have secured several villages from members of the separatist terrorist groups.
The troops' presence in villages has restored the security situation in Maybrat district, and guaranteed public safety, he said in a statement released on Wednesday.
On September 5, 2021, TNI personnel engaged in a gunfight with several members of a notorious separatist terrorist group in the neighborhood areas of East Aifat sub-district.
They, however, retreated into a thick forest to escape, Pesireron informed. Prior to the exchange of fire, the separatist terrorists destroyed a bridge, he said.
Related news: Army personnel safeguard refugees from armed Papuan terrorists
Early last Thursday (September 2, 2021), members of an unidentified terrorist group had ambushed several soldiers while they were sleeping at the Kisor military post.
Four soldiers—2nd Sergeant Amrosius, Chief Private Dirham, First Private Zul Ansari, and First Lieutenant Dirman—had died in the attack, while two others had sustained serious injuries.
The bodies of three soldiers had been found at the post, while the body of another soldier had been discovered in the bushes not far from the post.
Owing to the incident, several local residents had fled their homes fearing their safety.
On Friday (September 10, 2021), West Papua police investigators named 19 suspects in connection with the attack on the military post.
Related news: W Papua governor urges residents to help capture killers of soldiers
Two of the 19 suspects, identified by their initials as MY (20) and MS (18), have been placed under police custody. MY is a resident of Boksu village, while MS is a resident of Insum village in South Aifat sub-district, according to West Papua Police spokesperson Senior Commissioner Adam Erwindi.
The 17 other suspects for whom a manhunt has been launched have been identified as Silas Ki, Manfred Fatem, Musa Aifat, Setam Kaaf, Titus Sewa, Irian Ki, Alfin Fatem, Agus Kaaf, Melkias Ki, Melkias Same, Amos Ki, Musa Aifat, Moses Aifat, Martinus Aisnak, Yohanes Yaam, Agus Yaam, and Robi Yaam, he said.
West Papua police have released the names of the 17 suspects based on the confessions of MY and MS to the investigators of South Sorong police precinct, Erwindi informed.
The September 2 ambush was thoroughly planned and organized by members of the West Papua National Committee operating in Kisor neighborhood of Maybrat district, he said.
Therefore, the police has classified the assault as a premeditated crime by the KNPB-Kisor chapter, led by Silas Ki, he added.
A joint team of personnel from the Indonesian Military and National Police are continuing their efforts to arrest all perpetrators, he said.
To this end, local residents have been requested to inform security personnel if they have information on the suspects' whereabouts, Erwindi said.
Referring to the attack on the military post, West Papua Governor Dominggus Mandacan had earlier appealed to residents of Kisor village to help security personnel capture the killers of the four soldiers.
Mandacan, who visited the scene of the shooting on September 4, 2021, also asked Kisor villagers who had fled to the forest to return home and resume their normal lives.
"The villagers do not need to panic or take refuge in the forest because the government works with the military and police to ensure public safety and security," he said.
On the sidelines of the governor's visit to the Kisor military post, Commander of the XVIII/Kasuari Regional Military Command, Maj.Gen. I Nyoman Castiasa, and West Papua Police chief, Insp.Gen.Tornagogo Sihombing, had promised to guarantee public safety and security in Maybrat district.
"Our mission is to hunt down and arrest the perpetrators. So, members of communities need not be afraid of our presence because we are there to defend and protect the people," Castiasa said.
To persuade those who have fled their villages to return home, Indonesian soldiers are using the indigenous language of the Aifat ethnic group.
Related news: West Papua police chief condemns killing of Kisor soldiers
The soldiers have posted and distributed pamphlets urging refugees to return home and asking local residents to stay calm, Pesireron said.
"The TNI fully guarantees public security so locals are urged to resume their daily activities in their villages. We are speaking to them in their own language," he remarked.
According to Pesireron, TNI personnel are responsible for maintaining the state's sovereignty and protecting locals from the threat posed by Papuan separatist terrorists.
"The KNPB had once existed in the Aifat neighborhood areas and propagated a seed of anti-regional development but the KNPB has no longer been there since the presence of TNI and police personnel," he added.
Related news: West Papua police name 19 suspects in Kisor attack case
Related news: West Papua: TNI urges refugees to return home
The great power competition that has emerged between the United States and China over the Indo-Pacific has seen Australia and Indonesia enhance political linkages to retain their regional autonomy. This renewed cooperation between Canberra and Jakarta is described under the umbrella of the Plan of Action for the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership (2020-2024). The plan lays out fertile areas of cooperation including cultural exchange, economic opportunity, and military training.
For Canberra, having such legislative architecture in place serves a strategic function of minimizing the probability of an Indonesia that is hostile or indifferent to Australia. Doing so preserves and enhances the security and prosperity of both countries during a time of great shifts in the international system. As country’s jockey for influence in the region, competition between authoritarianism and liberal democracy is playing out. Australia perceives itself to be a champion of liberal democracy, and it is in this space where the problem of West Papua in the Australia-Indonesia relationship emerges.
The problem of West Papua lies in its incorporation into the Republic of Indonesia. The region was formally annexed into Indonesia by the 1969 ‘Act of Free Choice’. Although a referendum, it was conducted unfairly. Indonesia’s government gathered 1025 Papuan chieftains to participate on behalf of their constituencies. These individuals were found either because they were pro-Indonesian annexation, or threatened with violence if they wanted to express a dissenting opinion.
Despite this revelation in the 1990s, political attitudes towards Indonesia had changed with the coming Suharto’s New Order in 1966. It was pro-Western and anti-communist, thus the issue was not pursued. Today, there is significant tension between Jakarta and West Papua across a spectrum. These issues include armed conflict, ineffective development, cultural eradication, jurisdictional corruption, media suppression, and insufficient political representation.
Australia is an unambiguous ally of the U.S., in part because both bodies hold dear the values of economic, personal, and political freedoms that come with having a liberal and democratic system. These beliefs have compelled Australia to speak on the human rights violations experienced by the Uyghurs, in spite of diplomatic and economic reprisals from China. They have been so essential to the prosperity of Australia. Therefore, Australia ought to be opposed to the illiberal way in which Indonesia treats West Papua.
However, when the Plan of Action discusses matters of justice it refers to external threats like terrorism, human trafficking, and the drug trade, ignoring the internal issue that is West Papua. Furthermore, Australia’s participation in policy and military training exercises with Indonesia has problematic outcomes for West Papua’s people. An extensive report from the Guardian Australia draws the connection between the cooperation on anti-terrorism and anti-people smuggling training. The training was given by the Australian Federal Police to the Jakarta Centre for Law Enforcement Cooperation. This connection was established in the aftermath of the 2002 Bali Bombings, to increasing the effectiveness of oppression in West Papua.
While the initiative has been immensely successful at preventing large scale terrorist attacks, there are no guardrails to prevent the lessons learned from Australian institutions in the arena of domestic conflict. By increasing the capacity of Indonesia’s policy and military to counteract potential terrorist threats, Australia’s education contributes to these institutions’ oppression of West Papuans. The realpolitik that underpins Australia’s conceptions of regional security demands the subordination of their values, to guarantee a strong relationship with Indonesia.
Middle powers like Australia are often charged with the quality of having innovative and creative diplomatic solutions, because they cannot change the world through force. The protection of human rights is an issue of increasing priority in multiple contexts and inseparable from the values Australia aims to represent. Indonesia is a near neighbor and the two countries have worked together on domestic issues, most recently the ongoing support to combat COVID-19. It stands to reason that should Australia attempt to lead a mediation effort to end this conflict. It would be fruitful because it has the resources to support resolutions that result from mediation. Canberra has also cultivated strong relationships with other states that could contribute to these processes both monetarily and at the negotiating table.
This would not be an easy issue for Australia to address alone. For instance, any western country intervening directly and without international approval in the domestic matters of a Southeast Asian country conjures the spectre of colonialism. It invites pushback from a variety of places regardless of intention. Australia could allocate its aid to target humanitarian efforts in West Papua, however, this is only a temporary solution. It does little to resolve root causes of the conflict, and would persist after this proposed period of targeted aid ends.
There is greater risk in attempting to address systemic dysfunction because it raises uncomfortable questions to leadership figures. There would be significant geo-strategic consequences if Canberra were to mishandle its approach to Jakarta because it would squander goodwill built. It would also setback the various strategic objectives pinned to maintain a positive bilateral relationship. Therefore, Australia should look to put its influence behind multilateral efforts for peace in West Papua.
A multilateral approach has important implications for how the peace process is perceived. It shows there is regional and international pushback to the human rights abuses in West Papua. As such, it would then be difficult to ascribe neo-colonial intent to Australian action on the issue. A multilateral initiative also becomes a vehicle to build political will in the domestic environment. Additionally, within the context of the ongoing great power competition, this process would demonstrate how a coalition of democracies can work collaboratively on complex human rights and development issues.
A natural avenue for multilateral coordination on West Papua in Australia’s regional setting is the Pacific Island Forum (PIF). The PIF is a regional organization and forum that provides a venue for all Pacific Island countries, including Australia and New Zealand, to work on political and economic challenges. The group also emphasises a communal approach to tackle issues like development and social inclusion. Among this cohort Papua New Guinea is unique, as it is the only country to share a land border with West Papua.
The issue of West Papua has been on the PIF’s agenda since 2000 and in recent years, has become a more frequent issue for discussion. The group aims to cooperate with Indonesia to open constructive dialogues and working with the United Nations Council of Human Rights. The PIF was granted the opportunity in 2017 by Indonesia to send an independent Electoral Observer Team to oversee regional elections in Papua province and to make recommendations on potentially improving the process. Indonesia invited the PIF Secretariat to speak at the 10th Bali Democracy Forum in 2017. Both signal that cooperation is possible, despite the PIF acknowledging the shortcomings of Indonesia’s policies in West Papua.
The example set by the PIF is instructive, showing that Australia can work on human rights issues with Indonesia, without jeopardizing its positive relationship. Canberra’s current positive relationship with Jakarta, combined with various multinational networks, are Australia’s greatest assets in attempting to utilize its capacity as a provider of developmental aid and peacemaker. Australia then must find the political will to broach this difficult issue with Indonesia and work more thoroughly with its partners in the PIF. Successfully mediating an end to this conflict is not only a public good for the region, but an opportunity to reinforce the ideological beliefs that Australia represents during a period of strategic tensions between countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.