Wednesday, April 30, 2025

1) Military-backed plantation project in Indonesian Papua triggers rights concerns


2) Papuans Behind Bars 2024 Q4 Report

3) No Russia in Papua: Indonesia’s quiet diplomacy speaks loudly 




----------------------------------

Mongabay

1)  Military-backed plantation project in Indonesian Papua triggers rights concerns

HANS NICHOLAS JONG
 30 APR 2025 ASIA
  • Indonesia’s human rights commission has found serious rights and environmental violations in a government-backed plantation project in Papua, including land grabbing, lack of Indigenous consent, and militarization that has created fear among local communities.
  • The project, aiming to clear 3 million hectares (7.4 million acres) for sugarcane and rice plantations, threatens biodiverse forests and Indigenous livelihoods, violating national and international protections for land rights, food security and environmental health.
  • Five key rights were found to be violated: rights to land, environment, food, participation in decision-making, and security — all guaranteed by Indonesian law and international norms.
  • The rights commission, Komnas HAM, recommended legal recognition of Indigenous lands, fair participation, and restoration of rights, but civil society groups are calling for a complete halt to the project and demilitarization, warning of systematic harm if it continues.

JAKARTA — Indonesia’s national human rights commission has found a slew of legal and rights violations in a government-backed project to establish large-scale plantations in the eastern region of Papua.

The so-called food estate project, categorized by the government as being of strategic national importance, or PSN, aims to clear 3 million hectares (7.4 million acres) of land in Merauke district, two-thirds of it for sugarcane plantations and the rest for rice fields — an area 45 times the size of Jakarta.

The rights commission, known as Komnas HAM, launched an investigation after receiving complaints last year from four Indigenous tribes whose ancestral lands overlap with the food estate. The tribes — the Malind, Maklew, Khimaima and Yei — alleged that the project violated their land rights and impacted their livelihoods.

Komnas HAM, which is funded by the government but operates independently, quizzed officials involved in the project from the local and national governments. Based on these inquiries, it said it had found indications of land grabbing, environmental degradation, militarization and intimidation.

For one, Komnas HAM said the Indigenous communities hadn’t given consent to transfer or use their customary lands for the project. When the government zoned their areas for the food estate project, it never properly consulted them, the inquiry found.

However, these communities lack strong legal standing to defend their territories, as their land rights aren’t formally recognized by the government. The only basis for their Indigenous territorial claims is participatory mapping — carried out by themselves — of their lands.

The Indigenous communities also complained of the intensified presence of the military in their areas. Papua has long been the most militarized region of Indonesia, the result of a long-running insurgency. But while Jakarta maintains that the heavy security presence there is to counter what it calls “criminal armed groups” affiliated with the West Papua independence campaign, the military is now engaged in the food estate project.

On Nov. 10, 2024, 2,000 troops arrived in Merauke to support the project; military posts had already been established beforehand. And earlier last year, the military also provided a security escort for a fleet of heavy equipment to build infrastructure for the project in Ilwayab subdistrict.

“The addition of military forces around forests and Indigenous lands affected by the PSN creates heightened tension,” Komnas HAM wrote in a letter detailing its findings. “Although their official role is to support the project, their large-scale deployment increases fear among Indigenous people, who feel watched and physically threatened.”

Satya Bumi, an environmental NGO that’s been monitoring the project, said the government’s decision to deploy armed forces to Merauke indicates the state views Indigenous peoples as a threat to the nation who must be subdued.

Threat to forests and people

The plantation project’s large-scale monoculture model also threatens Merauke’s biodiverse forests and ecological balance, Komnas HAM found. These ecosystems are vital to the livelihood of the Indigenous communities, providing traditional food crops like sago and tubers, the commission noted.

Franky Samperante, director of the Pusaka Foundation, an NGO that works with Indigenous peoples in Papua, welcomed Komnas HAM’s findings.

“They confirm that there is indeed a potential for human rights violations — starting from the formulation of the laws and policies themselves, which were done without consultation or consent from local communities, to the potential impacts on their way of life,” he told Mongabay.

Based on these findings, Komnas HAM concluded that the food estate project contradicts multiple national regulations protecting Indigenous rights.

It cited the 1999 Forestry Law, which requires permits and consultation for the use of customary forests — a requirement that in this case wasn’t fulfilled. Similarly, the exclusion of Indigenous peoples violates the principle of participation under the 2012 Land Procurement Law.

The project also goes against international human rights and environmental standards. While Indonesia hasn’t ratified the International Labour Organization’s Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, Komnas HAM emphasized that the principles it enshrines — particularly the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) — should serve as a benchmark.

The project’s ongoing deforestation and disruption of Indigenous territories also run counter to Indonesia’s commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Global Biodiversity Framework, both of which oblige the government to uphold forest conservation, climate resilience and Indigenous rights.

List of rights violations

In all, Komnas HAM identified five human rights violations in the food estate project.

The first of these is the right to land and customary territory, which is guaranteed under Indonesia’s Constitution.

The second is the right to a healthy environment, also enshrined in the Constitution and the 2009 Environmental Protection Law.

The third is the right to food security, guaranteed by the Constitution and the 2012 Food Law, which mandates that food policies be based on community needs and participation, including of Indigenous peoples.

The fourth is the right to participation in decision-making, guaranteed by the 2012 Land Procurement Law.

And the fifth right violated in the project is the right to security, as the heavy presence of the military creates psychological pressure and increases fear of intimidation or violence among Indigenous peoples, Komnas HAM said.

Recommendations

Given these multiple rights and legal violations, Komnas HAM issued a number of recommendations for the government, at local and national levels.

It said the government should first increase Indigenous participation in the project planning by ensuring local communities’ active involvement to obtain their FPIC. Consent must be obtained not only from tribal or clan chiefs, but from all traditional stakeholders, it said. The government must also provide an effective complaint mechanism to address Indigenous communities’ complaints about the project.

Second, the government must work with Indigenous communities to carry out legally sound and transparent mapping of customary lands to prevent unauthorized land transfers and ensure legal recognition of the communities’ land rights, Komnas HAM said.

The rights commission also said the government should strengthen policies that acknowledge Indigenous rights to land and territories, including decisions over forest use and agricultural land use.

In addition, the government must ensure that projects involving Indigenous land provide fair benefits and promote sustainable development for Indigenous peoples, it said.

Komnas HAM’s final recommendation is for the government to evaluate the issuance of permits and concessions to companies operating on customary lands, prioritizing the interests of Indigenous communities in land-use policies in their areas.


Calls to end the project

Uli Parulian Sihombing, a commissioner at Komnas HAM who issued the recommendation letter, said the commission will continue its inquiries of government officials to ensure the recommendations are carried out. However, the commission’s recommendations are not legally binding.

Satya Bumi called for the more drastic step of ending the Merauke food estate project entirely. “The Komnas HAM recommendation must serve as a loud alarm,” the group said.

Evaluating the project alone isn’t enough, given its potential to wreak systematic destruction of the environment, living spaces and the socioeconomic fabric of local communities, the NGO said.

It added similar measures must be taken to halt other PSN projects elsewhere in the country, which have similarly been the target of human rights violations, such as a solar panel factory on Rempang Island and an oil refinery in Air Bangis, both in Sumatra.

And since land grabbing and environmental destruction have already occurred in Merauke, the government must restore the rights of the affected communities through compensation and the recovery of customary forests, Satya Bumi said.

“Efforts to restore rights and guarantee the welfare of communities can serve as evidence that the government upholds its constitutional duty to promote public welfare, as written in the 1945 Constitution,” Satya Bumi said. “If not, then all nationalist claims and rhetoric about prioritizing the people’s interests are empty slogans, mere political fiction.”

The group also demanded the withdrawal of military and police forces from PSN locations like Merauke, saying their presence has endangered local communities and instilled ongoing fear.

“The many reckless approaches the government has taken in managing the country through the PSN [designation] reflect how it sees Papua: as empty land,” Satya Bumi said. “The promise of equitable development is a sham, when in fact the intended beneficiaries, the people, feel threatened and are forced to face an increasingly difficult existence.”

Franky from the Pusaka Foundation said it was unlikely the government would heed any of the calls by civil society groups or even Komnas HAM. He said the central government has a track record of ignoring grievances raised by communities and civil society, and instead prioritizing the interests of investors and fast-tracking their large-scale projects.

“The national government must also implement the recommendations, because they are responsible for the project,” Franky said.

Banner image: The Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Agriculture disseminate information regarding the food estate program at the Uli-Uli village in Ilwayab sub-district, Merauke, South Papua, Indonesia, in August 2024. 


----------------------------------

   
TAPOL
2) Papuans Behind Bars 2024 Q4 Report

Quarterly Update October–December 2024 Report |  
 30 April 2025

Summary

During this period Papuans Behind Bars recorded 58 political arrests of West Papuans, comprising at least 51 arbitrary arrests and six arbitrary detentions. In addition, eight people were reportedly tortured, four people were victims of extrajudicial killings, and two people were minors. Of the 58 cases, 40 people have been released, 12 others are still detained, with two of them allegedly missing.

This quarter also saw at least 11 detainees arrested in previous periods receive sentences from the courts; six of whom were arrested in 2023, five of whom were arrested in 2024. Five were convicted of knowing and not preventing a conspiracy to commit rebellion, two were convicted of endangering public security, two men were convicted of insulting the state emblem, and two were convicted of premeditated murder. Their sentences ranged from five months to 12 years in prison…..


——————————————————


The Strategist

3) No Russia in Papua: Indonesia’s quiet diplomacy speaks loudly 
30 Apr 2025|Hangga Fathana
Indonesia’s low-key rejection of reported Russian interest in military basing in Papua says more than it appears to. While Jakarta’s response was measured, it was deliberate—a calculated expression of Indonesia’s foreign policy doctrine of non-alignment, domestic political caution and regional diplomatic restraint.
Australia may view the lack of outrage or strong rhetorical pushback from Jakarta as a sign of ambiguity or even strategic hedging. But this would be a misjudgement of how Indonesia navigates great power competition. The country’s preference for understated diplomacy is not a weakness; it is a product of deeply rooted principles and historical experience.
In early April, media reports emerged suggesting that Russia had requested to base long-range aircraft in Biak, a small island in Papua. The Indonesian defence ministry quickly issued a brief statement rejecting the report. No grandstanding, no televised press conferences and certainly no escalatory rhetoric.
This kind of restraint has long been part of Indonesia’s playbook, and it extends beyond public statements. When Australia’s defence minister contacted Indonesia’s defence minister to seek clarification, Indonesia conveyed its position clearly and directly: the report was false and Jakarta had no intention of allowing such basing. The message was firm and delivered through quiet but unambiguous diplomatic channels. Though some foreign observers may find it unsatisfying, this approach allows Indonesia to preserve room for manoeuvre.
Indonesia’s ‘independent and active’ doctrine is more than a slogan. Indonesia’s recent decision to join BRICS—a group where Russia plays a prominent role—may indicate a gesture of alignment, but it is better understood as part of Jakarta’s broader interest in multipolar forums. Such engagement supports Indonesia’s non-aligned policy, allowing it to engage multiple powers while avoiding entanglement in blocs.
Nevertheless, when combined with other issues, such as the Biak basing reports, it is understandable that these developments may concern Canberra. This non-aligned stance has helped Indonesia weather Cold War pressures, regional conflicts and, more recently, the strategic tug-of-war between the United States and China.
This concern reflects longstanding patterns in the Australia-Indonesia relationship. The relationship has long been shaped by shared strategic interests, from maritime security and disaster response to regional stability, even as it has experienced periods of tension and recalibration.
Jakarta responded to the Biak report with a firm but calm statement, showing its typical diplomatic style. At the same time, it was careful to ensure that partners such as Australia would not misunderstand its silence as uncertainty. These geographic realities heighten Canberra’s sensitivities, but they do not change Jakarta’s steady posture. Long-range Russian aircraft stationed in Indonesia, if ever realised, would understandably trigger strategic concern in Canberra.
Jakarta’s restraint is not an invitation to doubt its alignment or question its reliability. It is a signal of how it intends to manage rising geopolitical pressure: by staying calm, avoiding theatre and asserting control over its own narrative. That narrative is grounded in sovereignty and, yes, in a form of regional leadership that values stability over spectacle.
Indonesia also understands that loud declarations can backfire, especially when domestic dynamics are at play. In fact, civil society observers and policy analysts have openly reminded the Prabowo administration to remain sober and uphold Indonesia’s long-standing non-alignment, cautioning against any defence postures that could invite strategic misperception.
The government is sensitive to how Papua features in both international and domestic political debates. Amplifying the Biak story could have generated unnecessary heat and risked politicising a defence matter that Jakarta was keen to close quickly.
For Australia, the key is not to misread silence as passivity or fence-sitting. Indonesia’s approach may not always align with Canberra’s expectations of strategic signalling, but that does not make it opaque. Instead, it calls for a deeper understanding of how Indonesia communicates intent: often subtly, often on its own terms.
The Australia-Indonesia relationship is stronger when both sides recognise each other’s strategic cultures. Australia prefers clarity and predictability in foreign policy, while Indonesia sometimes keeps its position flexible to reduce external pressure. These differences are not flaws; they are features to be managed with mutual respect.
Misreading Indonesia’s restraint risks reinforcing a false binary: the idea that if a partner isn’t loudly with us, they must be against us. The idea that Australia needs to ‘do business with partners who have friends we don’t like’ oversimplifies the complexity of regional partnerships. Such phrasing may be analytically useful, but it risks normalising transactional attitudes in relationships that require nuance, reciprocity and long-term investment.
Indonesia’s foreign policy is rarely that binary. It is calibrated, complex and designed for flexibility. Recognising this approach for what it is—not a lack of commitment, but a deliberate form of regional statecraft—can help Australia navigate its strategic partnership with Indonesia more constructively.

 AUTHOR Hangga Fathana is an assistant professor in the Department of International Relations at Universitas Islam Indonesia.   
Image of a Russian Tuvolev Tu-95 at Biak in 2017: Russian Ministry of Defence/Facebook.

-------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.