-------------------------------------------
1) President Wenda: sympathy for hostage pilot, abduction a result of Indonesian colonialism
I want to offer my deepest sympathies to the friends and family of the New Zealand pilot taken hostage in Nduga. At the same time, the ULMWP Executive reiterates and reassures the New Zealand government and the world that we are to a peaceful, diplomatic approach. Our roadmap is very clear: we are pursuing the unified West Papuan goal of Merdeka – national liberation – peacefully, through diplomatic political mechanisms.
We must not lose sight of the fact that Indonesia uses this kind of violence as part of a distinct strategy of occupation. Their aim is to intensify militarisation in West Papua as a way of strengthening their colonial grip on our land. Last year, Indonesia’s parliament passed a law creating three new provinces in West Papua, as part of the renewal of the 2001 ‘Special Autonomy’ programme. West Papuans overwhelmingly reject ‘Special Autonomy’, with over 700,000 of us having signed a petition against it. Provincial division is a justification for increased militarisation in West Papua, pure and simple. By creating new administrative divisions, Indonesia justifies the establishment of new colonial infrastructure and new military posts. They do not want dialogue or peaceful protest: they want chaos and violence, for West Papua to remain a warzone.
As our land is militarised and destroyed, our people are forcibly displaced. Depopulation is another key part of Indonesia’s colonial strategy: by removing West Papuans from our ancestral lands, they allow for massive exploitation of our natural resources. Up to 100,000 West Papuans have been internally displaced since 2019, including close to half of Nduga’s entire population. They continue to live in the bush, deprived of education, food, and adequate medical facilities, unable to return to their homes. Indonesia labels us as terrorists while committing state terrorism in our lands.
At the same time, the coloniser burns our forest and destroys our mountains, creating mega-developments like the Wabu Block gold mine, which is bigger in size than Jakarta. This is not development for West Papuans, it is big business for Indonesia. West Papuans refuse to be Jakarta’s colony any longer.
Indonesia have consistently ignored or manipulated our demand for a peaceful solution. For years now, I have offered to sit down with President Widodo and discuss the path to an internationally mediated referendum, but have been ignored.
If Indonesia wanted to reduce violence in West Papua, they would listen to the call of more than 80 countries and allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to investigate there. They would allow foreign media to report on abuses in West Papua. They would not employ Generals trained in genocide in East Timor to run their occupation. The world must understand that Indonesia stokes violence in West Papua to justify brutality, militarism and racism. They have even gone so far as to regularly stage attacks on their own military.
I again offer my sympathies to the pilot’s family, and reiterate the ULMWP’s following peaceful demands:
- The withdrawal of all Indonesian troops from West Papua;
- Immediate access to West Papua for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights;
- Cancellation of ‘Special Autonomy’, including the new provincial division;
- An immediate referendum on independence.
The kidnap of a foreign pilot naturally brings West Papua to the attention of international media. But West Papuans are tortured and murdered daily by Indonesian forces, and international media are banned from seeing it. The international community must help to end the violence in West Papua by forcing Indonesia to come the table and discuss a referendum, the only path to a peaceful resolution. We will continue going to peacefully continue our long fight for freedom, until the world finally hears our cry.
Benny Wenda
President
ULMWP
------------------------------------------
“Phil Mehrtens is the nicest guy, he genuinely is – no one ever had anything bad to say about him”, says a colleague of the New Zealand pilot taken hostage this week by members of the West Papuan Liberation Army (TPN-PB) in the mountainous Nduga Regency.
How such a nice guy became a pawn in the decades-long conflict between West Papua and the Indonesian government is a tragic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But it is also a symbolic and desperate attempt to attract international attention towards the West Papuan crisis.
A joint military and police mission has so far failed to find or rescue Mehrtens, and forcing negotiations with Jakarta is a prime strategy of TPN-PB. As spokesperson Sebby Sambom told Australian media this week:
The military and police have killed too many Papuans. From our end, we also killed [people]. So it is better that we sit at the negotiation table […] Our new target are all foreigners: the US, EU, Australians and New Zealanders because they supported Indonesia to kill Papuans for 60 years. Colonialism in Papua must be abolished.
Sambom is referring to the international complicity and silence since Indonesia annexed the former Dutch colony as it prepared for political independence in the 1960s. Mehrtens has become the latest foreign victim of the resulting protracted and violent struggle by West Papuans for autonomy.
Violence and betrayal
The history of the conflict can be traced back to 1962, when the US facilitated what became known as the New York Agreement, which handed West Papua over to the United Nations and then to Indonesia.
In 1969, the UN oversaw a farcical independence referendum that effectively allowed the permanent annexation of West Papua by Indonesia. Since that time, West Papuans have been subjected to violent human rights abuses, environmental and cultural dispossession, and mass killings under Indonesian rule and mass immigration policies.
Read more: How the world failed West Papua in its campaign for independence
New Zealand and Australia continue to support Indonesian sovereignty over West Papua, and maintain defence and other diplomatic ties with Jakarta. Australia has been involved in training Indonesian army and police, and is a major aid donor to Indonesia.
Phil Mehrtens is far from the first hostage to be taken in this unequal power struggle. Nearly three decades ago, in the neighbouring district of Mapenduma, TPN-PB members kidnapped a group of environmental researchers from Europe for five months.
Like now, the demand was that Indonesia recognise West Papuan independence. Two Indonesians with the group were killed. The English and Dutch hostages were ultimately rescued, but not before further tragedy occurred.
At one point, negotiations seemed to have stalled between the West Papuan captors and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which was delivering food and supplies to the hostages and working for their release.
Read more: Fight for freedom: new research to map violence in the forgotten conflict in West Papua
Taking matters into their own hands, members of the Indonesian military commandeered a white civilian helicopter that had been used (or was similar to one used) by the ICRC. Witnesses recall seeing the ICRC emblem on the aircraft. When the helicopter lowered towards waiting crowds of civilians, the military opened fire.
The ICRC denied any involvement in the resulting massacre, but the entire incident was emblematic of the times. It took place several years before the fall of former Indonesian president Suharto, when there was little hope of West Papua gaining independence from Indonesia through peaceful negotiations.
Then, as now, the TPN-PB was searching for a way to capture the world’s attention.
Losing hope
Since the early 2000s, with Suharto gone and fresh hope inspired by East Timor’s independence, Papuans – including members of the West Papuan Liberation Army – have largely been committed to fighting for independence through peaceful means.
After several decades of wilful non-intervention by Australia and New Zealand in what they consider to be Jakarta’s affairs, that hope is flagging. It appears elements of the independence movement are again turning to desperate measures.
In 2019, the TPN-PB killed 24 Indonesians working on a highway to connect the coast with the interior, claiming their victims were spies for the Indonesian army. They have become increasingly outspoken about their intentions to stop further Indonesian expansion in Papua at any cost.
In turn, this triggered a hugely disproportionate counter-insurgency operation in the highlands where Phil Mehrtens was captured. It has been reported at least 60,000 people have been displaced in the Nduga Regency over the past four years as a result, and it is still not safe for them to return home.
Read more: West Papua is on the verge of another bloody crackdown
International engagement
It is important to remember that the latest hostage taking, and the 1996 events, are the actions of a few. They do not reflect the commitment of the vast majority of Indigenous West Papuans to work peacefully for independence through demonstrations, social media activism, civil disobedience, diplomacy and dialogue.
Looking forward, New Zealand, Australia and other governments close to Indonesia need to commit to serious discussions about human rights in West Papua – not only because there is a hostage involved, but because it is the right thing to do.
This may not be enough to resolve the current crisis, but it would be a long overdue and critical step in the right direction.
Negotiations for the release of Philip Mehrtens must be handled carefully to avoid further disproportionate responses by the Indonesian military. The kidnapping is not justified, but neither is Indonesia’s violence against West Papuans – or the international community’s refusal to address the violence.
In his speech, Joko Widodo (Jokowi) listed 12 incidents, including the mass killings of an estimated 500,000 communists and suspected sympathizers in 1965/66, the abductions and killings of students at the end of the authoritarian New Order period in 1998, as well as violent excesses by the security forces in the restive provinces of Aceh and Papua.
All of these human rights violations – and several others not included in Jokowi’s list – have been well-documented by scholars, journalists, and human rights activists. Until now, Indonesian official historiography has either denied they occurred or justified them as necessary actions in the fight against political enemies.
International human rights organisations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have cautiously welcomed Jokowi’s announcement as a “step on the long road to justice for victims and their loved ones,” but many Indonesian activists have criticized the president’s statement as insufficient.
Usman Hamid from Amnesty International, for instance, has said that “a mere acknowledgement without efforts to bring to trial those responsible for past human rights abuses will only add salt to the wounds of victims and their families. Put simply this statement is nothing without also addressing accountability and bringing an end to impunity. Merely mentioning the name of several tragic events is far from enough.”
Similarly, Andreas Harsono from Human Rights Watch described the announcement as “disappointing,” adding that Jokowi “could have done so much more than what he did today.” The Indonesian Legal Aid Institute Foundation, meanwhile, expressed concern that Jokowi’s announcement may just be empty rhetoric.
The coming weeks and months will reveal whether or not these concerns are justified. Jokowi has pledged to set up a task force consisting of representatives of several ministries to oversee the implementation of recommendations made by the so-called Nonjudicial Resolution Team for Past Serious Human Rights Violations (PPHAM). But as the name of the team suggests (Nonjudicial Resolution Team), these recommendations are not aimed at bringing perpetrators to justice. Nor do they focus on genuine reconciliation measures such as truth-telling or a rewriting of the official history books.
Instead, they are primarily socio-economic measures such as providing financial compensation, access to healthcare, and pensions as well as bureaucratic procedures such as restoring victims’ legal rights and reinstating Indonesian citizenship for those who went into exile after the 1965 atrocities and are now willing to return. While those who seek justice and accountability may be disappointed with this rather technocratic approach, other survivors of the violence may well be satisfied that they will at least get their political rights back and receive some financial assistance to support their families. Such assistance might be particularly important for those currently living in more remote areas outside Java.
Even these measures, however, may face resistance from inside Jokowi’s inner circle. Military and police officers occupy prominent roles in Jokowi’s cabinet and given their deep involvement in the 12 atrocities, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. This is especially the case for Defence Minister Prabowo Subianto, who has been implicated in various gross human rights violations including the 1998 abductions and killings of student activists. It is expected that any efforts to rehabilitate the victims ahead of the 2024 elections where he is set to run for the presidency for a third time will be obstructed.
It is this peculiar constellation that has raised speculation as to why Jokowi made the announcement at this particular time, just when the contenders for the 2024 election are gearing up to forge political coalitions and prepare their formal nominations later this year. According to respected pollster SMRC, Prabowo has recently lost ground in what is widely regarded as a three-horse-race between the former general and the two provincial governors, Ganjar Pranowo (Central Java) and Anies Baswedan (Jakarta).
Against the background of these political dynamics, some media outlets have pondered whether Jokowi, who is rumoured to favour Ganjar as his successor, made his announcement with the underlying intention to further undermine Prabowo’s prospects for a candidature in 2024. But the opposite is also possible. Recall that Jokowi fought two deeply polarized presidential campaigns against Prabowo in 2014 and 2019, only to invite his former foe into his cabinet in 2019. Thus, another interpretation of the timing of the announcement might be that Prabowo may ultimately benefit from getting this potentially damaging topic raised now, more than 12 months before the election, as it might allow him to deflect future questions about his involvement in human rights violations by pointing out that these issues were directly addressed under his watch as Defence Minister.
Whatever Jokowi’s intentions, whether or not the announcement will be followed by concrete next steps and tangible outcomes for victims may ultimately depend on whether or not civil society organisations can now put pressure on the government to follow through on its promises. Unfortunately, however, broader trends in Indonesia’s recent democratic trajectory make this rather unlikely.
During Jokowi’s second term, the quality of Indonesian democracy has steadily declined as space for protest and dissent has narrowed and human rights protections have been eroded with the recent passing of the controversial new Criminal Code. Moreover, members of the security apparatus continue to enjoy “a high degree of impunity for illegal behaviour.” This was evident once again in the recent trial of retired military liaison officer Isak Sattu who was found not guilty of crimes against humanity for his role in the 2014 shooting deaths of four Indigenous Papuan teenagers in Paniai, Papua. Perhaps even more concerning than Isak’s acquittal was the fact that he was the only officer who was actually charged while others higher up in the chain of command were never put on trial.
Taken together, these are strong indications that the path from the president’s acknowledgment of human rights violations to tangible outcomes for the victims will be long and arduous. Only if the broader trend of democratic decline can be reversed will the prospects for justice improve.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.