A Written Statement of Mr Octovianus Mote[1] to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) of the US Congress hearing on Human Rights in Indonesia on 23 May 2013
Introduction
This written statement not only summarizes the deteriorating human rights situation in West Papua[2] (Indonesia), but more importantly outlines the urgency for the international community to take action to find a peaceful solution to the longest unresolved conflict in the Pacific. The main argument of this statement is that under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, the international community should take an immediate action to stop the ongoing crimes against humanity in West Papua. This argument will be summarized to frame this statement.
This written statement not only summarizes the deteriorating human rights situation in West Papua[2] (Indonesia), but more importantly outlines the urgency for the international community to take action to find a peaceful solution to the longest unresolved conflict in the Pacific. The main argument of this statement is that under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) framework, the international community should take an immediate action to stop the ongoing crimes against humanity in West Papua. This argument will be summarized to frame this statement.
The rest of the statement will discuss two major interrelated parts.
First, it elucidates facts and figures that have led to the conclusion
of the urgency of an international intervention to assist the Indonesian
state in fulfilling its responsibility to protect. This exposition will
be followed by a brief analysis of the critical development of peace
initiatives since 2011. This part explores possibilities to build peace
in West Papua in the long-run by way of initiating peace talks between
Jakarta and Papua. The statement will conclude with recommendations.
The responsibility to protect (RTP): a brief summary
The ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) recognizes that ‘the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself’, but it also assumes that the international community has a responsibility to protect populations which are suffering serious harm either at the hands of the state itself, or where the state is ‘unwilling or unable to halt or avert’ the harm. In upholding its responsibility to protect, the international community recognizes not only the possibility of taking collective action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but has also committed itself ( A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140) ‘to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means…to help to protect populations’, and to ‘helping States build capacity to protect their populations.’
The ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) recognizes that ‘the primary responsibility for the protection of its people lies with the state itself’, but it also assumes that the international community has a responsibility to protect populations which are suffering serious harm either at the hands of the state itself, or where the state is ‘unwilling or unable to halt or avert’ the harm. In upholding its responsibility to protect, the international community recognizes not only the possibility of taking collective action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but has also committed itself ( A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140) ‘to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means…to help to protect populations’, and to ‘helping States build capacity to protect their populations.’
Status of human rights in West Papua
Indonesia is a signatory to the major international human rights treaties and conventions, and the Indonesian House of Representatives have passed a number of important human rights laws which protects Indonesian citizens. The international conventions Indonesia is party to include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the Convention of Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). Important domestic laws include Law 39/1999 on Human Rights and Law 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts. Just like the US, so too Indonesia prefers to be assessed based on its own laws. For our purposes this legal framework provides us with clear sets of criteria to assess the status of human rights in West Papua.
Indonesia is a signatory to the major international human rights treaties and conventions, and the Indonesian House of Representatives have passed a number of important human rights laws which protects Indonesian citizens. The international conventions Indonesia is party to include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the Convention of Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). Important domestic laws include Law 39/1999 on Human Rights and Law 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts. Just like the US, so too Indonesia prefers to be assessed based on its own laws. For our purposes this legal framework provides us with clear sets of criteria to assess the status of human rights in West Papua.
Both national and international sources have closely monitored the
current status of human rights in West Papua. While some diplomatic
missions in Jakarta (e.g. the United States, the United Kingdom,
Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands) are permitted to
regularly visit West Papua, representatives of the UN human rights
mechanisms and international scholars and journalists are often
prevented from visiting the territory. This fact not only suggests a
policy of isolating of West Papua from international audience, it
illustrates the degree of sensitivity of the Indonesian authorities
towards this particular region. This policy, however, does not help
anyone because West Papuans continue to feel alienated and discriminated
against; the Indonesian administrations feel obliged to commit
extensive resources to defend its isolation policy; and the
international community continues to question this policy given
Indonesia’s claim as a multiparty democracy. More importantly, this
policy does not help address the protracted conflicts in Papua. On the
contrary, it simply sweeps the burning issues under the carpet.
This observation is not only based on my own assessment. A number of
international monitoring bodies have produced similar conclusions. The
U.S. State Department,[3] for instance, is among the few foreign
governments who closely monitor the status of human rights in Papua and
publishes it in its annual report on Indonesia. The amount of
information about Papua presented in the report is generally much
greater than that on any other area in Indonesia. This fact illustrates
the high level of awareness of the U.S. administration of events on in
West Papua. Furthermore, the annual report suggests the degree of
resources that the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta has allocated to adequately
monitor the development of human rights situation in West Papua over the
years.
From an NGO perspective, “Faith-based Network for West Papua,”[4] a
joint collaboration of local and international NGOs, produces an annual
report that covers civil and political rights, as well as economic,
social and cultural rights. This report is presented to the UN Human
Rights Council and elsewhere. Other groups regularly issue reports and
alerts about human rights violations in West Papua.
Foreign governments, the international community, and the United
Nations are well informed of what is going on in Papua. Then why is the
international community has not taken any action to stop crimes against
humanity against Papuans? The international community, particularly the
U.S. administration, cannot pretend that they are not informed. Then,
what is the purpose of publicizing the human rights situation in West
Papua every year?
It is not the objective of this statement, however, to answer those
questions. Rather, the following discussion will summarize the current
status of human rights in Papua in order to reiterate the urgency to
address the continuing crimes against humanity. Various reports record
that in the last five years the human rights status of Papua has not
significantly improved or been adequately addressed. On the contrary,
the Papuan rights remains fragile and unprotected.
First is the problem of habeas corpus. This ancient
principle reminds us of people’s fight and victory against the monarchs
in the European middle ages where the monarchs assumed power over
people’s bodies. The recurrence of reported cases of torture and
extra-judicial killings illustrate the degree of state penetration into
the personal integrity. Torture by state authorities, in particular,
remains prevalent although this crime is preventable. In a similar vein,
ongoing extrajudicial killings underscore the continuing practice of
state brutality against civilian Papuans.
For example, from 30 April and 1 May 2013 many Papuans marked the
50th anniversary of the transfer of administration of West Papua from
the United Nations Temporary Executive Administration to Indonesia. With
a heavy handed approach, the Indonesian police and army shot dead three
people in Sorong and injured three others. In Timika, the police
dispersed the protesters and arrested and detained civilians after they
took to the street to commemorate the historic moment of the transfer of
administration of their country 50 years ago. The forceful reaction
from the Indonesian security apparatus invoked worldwide reaction.
Papuan students organized a number of rallies in Jakarta and elsewhere
in Indonesia. In Australia, Papuan and joined by Indonesian students
released a joint press statement condemning the attack against
civilians. Moreover, Australian academics raised their concerns to the
Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs urging the Australian government
to act.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, released a
statement[5] just two days after the incident. She said she was
disappointed to see ‘violence and abuses continuing in Papua’, and she
described the latest incidents as ‘unfortunate examples of the ongoing
suppression of freedom of expression and excessive use of force in
Papua.’ Such a prompt response from the highest UN official dealing with
human rights sends a clear signal that the violence in Papua is a
priority on the UN’s human rights agenda. In claiming that
‘[i]nternational human rights law requires the Government of Indonesia
to conduct thorough, prompt and impartial investigations into the
incidents of killings and torture and [to] bring the perpetrators to
justice’, Pillay invokes the fundamental responsibility of all states to
protect their own citizens.
This reality is exacerbated by the fact that these crimes are rarely
punished, perpetuating the cycle of impunity. The level of impunity has
been so entrenched for so long that the Indonesian judicial system is
unable to penetrate it. One of the latest examples is the court hearings
on the torture case filmed, leaked and distributed on YouTube[6]
in 2010. There were two separate incidents captured in the footage. The
first part depicts eight Papuan highlanders stripped in front of two
Indonesian army soldiers. But only two of the victims were identified
under the names of Kotoran Wonda and Dipes Tabuni. While interrogating
these terrifying Papuans and calling them ‘monyet,’ ‘anjing,’ or ‘bajingan’
(monkey, dog, bastard), the soldiers kicked their heads with their army
boots and punched them with their helmet. The soldiers demanded they
confess to being members the Papuan ‘separatist’ movement OPM. The
second footage shows two Papuan highlanders being tortured. Telangga
Gire (30) had a knife at his throat and Tunaliwor Kiwo (50) was burnt on
his genitals by members of the Indonesian army questioning them about
the location of Free Papua Movement (OPM/Organisasi Papua Merdeka) weaponry near the highland town of Mulia.
The leak prompted a wave of international public reaction pressuring
the Indonesian government to address these atrocities. Instead of
showing its usual resistance to bow to public pressure, the Indonesian
government responded fairly quickly. Courts martial to hear the cases
were established in early 2011 in Jayapura, the provincial capital of
Papua. As a result, seven soldiers[7] were found guilty and sentenced to
jail for five to ten months. These modest sentences for three of the
soldiers were reduced on appeal to three months.[8] The court, however,
did not find them guilty of torture or assault. Rather, they were found
guilty of “not following orders.” Similarly, the court found the
commandant of the group guilty and sentenced him to seven months again
not for torture. Rather, because he “deliberately provided an
opportunity to his subordinates to not follow his orders.” As the
verdicts fixed on the matter of “following orders,” the court martial
failed to recognize torture as a form of state-sponsored brutality. (In
fact, torture is not banned under Indonesian law.) To make it worse, the
court did not actually try the cases of Kiwo and Gire.[9] Rather, it
only dealt with the cases of Dipes Tabuni and Kotoran Wonda from the
first part of the video who were tortured because they were accused of
being commandants of the OPM.
These verdicts go to the essence of this statement. It opines that
torture in Papua constitutes a state-sponsored crime and has become a
mode of governance as revealed by new research done at the Australian
National University in Canberra, Australia.[10] Torture, however, is not
the only coercive method that is frequently employed by the Indonesian
security services to intimidate civilians in Papua and across Indonesia.
The Indonesian state apparatus has no hesitation to use killing,
surveillance, arbitrary arrest and detention, and disappearances.
The high level of state violence together with impunity and denials
have put Papuans as one of the nations at “risk of extinction” as
described by Juan Mendez, the former Special Adviser to the UN Secretary
General on genocide prevention.[11] Analysis from the Allard K.
Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic Yale Law School in 2002[12]
had earlier suggested the possibility of genocide occurring in West
Papua. In a similar vein, an Australian researcher from the Centre for
Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney examined the
demographic shift in Papua which have marginalized indigenous
Papuans.[13]
The risk of extinction is higher if we combine state-sponsored
violence with the minimal public services available for the Papuans.
Although West Papua is the third largest income earner for Indonesia,
Papuans have to survive on very minimal public services. The latest
report of the Indonesian Bureau of Statistics[14] ranks Papua at the
bottom of the Indonesian National Human Development Index during
1996-2011 (15 years!). Papuans are at the bottom of the country in
average years of schooling, life expectancy, and per capita income.
These facts pose a serious question of the effectiveness of the 2002
Special Autonomy in addressing the basic needs of Papuans. That is why
Papuans symbolically returned the Special Autonomy package to the
central government during a massive rally in 2010. The Governor of
Yogyakarta Sultan Hamengkubuwono X, one of the most respected Indonesian
government officials, recently said that “The Special Autonomy which
simply relies on economy and security is proved failed to provide
prosperity for Papuans despite the provision of the USD 28.3 billion
funds from 2001-2011.”[15] Instead he proposed that the central
government concentrate on building trust with Papuans before talking
about economic development.
The confusion and overlapping policies are reflected in different
conflicting decisions such as the splitting off of the Province of West
Papua from the existing Province of Papua through a presidential decree.
This decision contradicts the Special Autonomy Law, which says that any
new province can only be established through the Special Autonomy
mechanism, not by a presidential decree. Legally, the latter has a lower
status than a law (e.g. the Special Autonomy Law). In a similar vein, pemekaran
(the creation of new local governments/regencies) has exacerbated the
policy confusion and more importantly seriously undermined the ability
of local governments to deliver high quality public services to Papuans.
In other words, the authority to govern Papua has not been
transferred fully to the local government of Papua as the spirit and the
letter of the Special Autonomy Law stipulates. Rather, the central
government continues to retain essential elements of the authority which
hamper the ability of the local government to function properly. This
situation worsened when in 2011 the Yudhoyono administration established
Unit Percepatan Pembangunan Papua dan Papua Barat (UP4B), a
task force mandated to accelerate development in Papua and West Papua
Provinces.[16] With a very broad mandate but limited authority, this
unit has found it extremely difficult to fulfill its own promises to
Papuans. The gap between promises and reality is not novel to West Papua
but at the same, exacerbates Papuan distrust towards Jakarta.
The policy confusion brings about serious consequences in the Papuan
daily life. For instance, local governments are unable to provide the
Papuan market women with a proper market space despite the affirmative
policy towards Papuans. Their demand for a market space in the city of
Jayapura remains unresolved despite the election promise of the mayor
(who is himself indigenous Papuan) to build a permanent market for the
women. Solpap,[17] a local solidarity network
that works very closely with the Papuan market women, continues to
provide moral and lobby support for the women. The network’s support
maintains and nurtures the consolidation among the women and put
pressure on the Jayapura mayor to fulfill his promise.
We can easily find a similar story from the public health sector. A recent outbreak of malnutrition has caused at least 95 lives in the newly establish district of Tambrauw and 61 lives from the District of Yahukimo. Both local[18] and national[19] media presented the figures which met a strong denial from the Minister of Health.[20] This approach illustrates the ways the government deals with life-threatening situation which constitutes one of the major priorities of the Special Autonomy.
This above description provides us with a good representation of a worrying situation of Papuans who are at risk of extinction. This picture requires an immediate action to stop the crimes against humanity, but there is enormous reluctance from the international community to become involved in lasting solutions. Perhaps as a feasible alternative, the following discussion will offer ideas which requires further follow-up.
Promising signals of peace negotiations?
There are a number of promising signals that need international supports to be able to pave the way to a more concrete step towards a peaceful solution. Early in 2012 the President of Indonesia, Dr Yudhoyono, publicly expressed his willingness to engage in serious dialogue with Papuans when he met with Papuan church leaders in Jakarta. He expressed this on two separate occasions, suggesting that he was committed to ending conflicts in Papua once for all. However, it has been a year now and we have yet to see any follow up to this commitment. Instead, the Indonesian police and military continue to conduct intensive and destructive operations in West Papua.
There are a number of promising signals that need international supports to be able to pave the way to a more concrete step towards a peaceful solution. Early in 2012 the President of Indonesia, Dr Yudhoyono, publicly expressed his willingness to engage in serious dialogue with Papuans when he met with Papuan church leaders in Jakarta. He expressed this on two separate occasions, suggesting that he was committed to ending conflicts in Papua once for all. However, it has been a year now and we have yet to see any follow up to this commitment. Instead, the Indonesian police and military continue to conduct intensive and destructive operations in West Papua.
On the West Papuan side, we have embarked on peace initiatives
initially agreed during our Congress in 2000 in Jayapura. We explicitly
and unanimously endorsed using only peaceful means in the struggle for
our rights. Since then various elements of the Papuan community have
engaged in peace campaigns, including church leaders, political leaders,
student movements, women’s groups, and even the Papuan freedom
fighters. In other words, the pursuit of a peaceful solution to the
seemingly intractable conflict in West Papua is more than desirable. It
is rooted in our deep conviction. This belief has become the fountain of
our struggle for peace.
For instance, since 2009, an indigenous Papuan Catholic priest,
Father Neles Tebay, established Papua Peace Network to specifically
promote the idea of dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. In conjunction
with the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), he organized public
consultations with the public throughout Papua to gather feedback on the
idea of dialogue between Jakarta and West Papua. The findings of this
effort were presented to top government officials, but their response
remains limited and far from enthusiastic.
Despite this limited response, the Papua Peace Network successfully
organized an important Papua peace conference in 2011. During this
conference, a senior Indonesian cabinet minister delivered a speech
representing the government’s position on dialogue. It was at this event
that some 500 Papuan representatives democratically elected myself and
five others as the Papuan peace negotiation team. The other members are
Leonie Tanggahma, Rex Rumakiek, Dr. John Ondawame, and Benny Wenda.[21]
All of us are Papuan leaders living in exile and based in different
parts of the world.
In early 2012, our negotiation team began a collaboration with the
Peacebuilding Compared Research Project[22] at the Australian National
University (ANU) in Canberra, Australia. This collaboration is helping
us develop our capacity in lobbying and negotiations. One of its
achievements is the establishment of our secretariat at ANU to provides
us with logistical and research support.
Nonetheless, a peace accord remains distant and the chance to embark
on peace talks with the Indonesian government remains fragile. This
fragility lies in the fact that President Yudhoyono has not yet
concretely implemented his commitment to dialogue and peace. His long
delay has had a tremendous impact on the status of human rights and
human security in Papua. For instance, we regularly to receive reports
of police brutality. The treatment of the Papuan political prisoners
serving sentences in prisons in Papua remains dire.[23] The Indonesian
government has resisted proposals for UN human rights investigators to
visit Papua; Visits by international scholars, journalists, some
diplomats and others to the territory are also restricted.
To address the fragility and urgency, it is important that the
international community to play a proactive role to implement its
responsibility to protect. In the context of Indonesia, peacebuilding
and the involvement of the international mediation is not novel. On the
contrary, the Indonesian experience has benefitted tremendously from
international mediation. For instance, during the Indonesian
decolonialization process in 1940s, the involvement of the U.S. and
Australia contributed to securing the transfer of sovereignty from the
colonial power Netherlands to Indonesia. The UN played a major mediating
role in ensuring East Timor’s right to self-determination. More
recently, Indonesia benefitted from the international intervention to
end the Aceh conflict. The intervention of Finland greatly contributed
to the negotiations that culminated in the signing of the Helsinki
Agreement, in 2005.[24] Renegotiating relationship between Jakarta and
Papua is the key to resolving the conflict in Papua in the long run.
More importantly, a peace accord would contribute to peace and stability
not only to Papua and Indonesia as a whole, but also in the Pacific
region which contains other fragile states.
My conviction and analysis is not entirely new. I have drawn
empirical studies of prominent international scholars who describe the
effectiveness of peace negotiations, even when they fail. I present to
you here two most recent examples: Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan’s
study on nonviolent resistance and the 2012 Human Security Report.
Chenoweth and Stephan’s quantitative study sheds new light on the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance (Chenoweth & Stephan 2011).
Based on 323 case studies worldwide from 1900 to 2006, their research
shows that nonviolent resistance was successful in 53% of cases in
achieving the objectives of a resistance movement compared to only 26%
of armed struggles. The core factors in the success of nonviolent
methods are their ability to cause the defection of state security
forces to take the side of nonviolent movements and to mobilize broad
participation from the general public. In the Papuan context, however,
causing the defection of the Indonesian military (TNI) to the Papuan
cause would be very difficult. Another part of their argument is that
nonviolence attracts more sympathy and support from the international
community than violence which eventually contributed to the
effectiveness of nonviolent resistance.
In a similar vein, the 2012 Human Security Report[25] from Simon
Fraser University provides us with the most recent examples of the
effectiveness of peace accords in ending armed conflict. The report
examines four different ways to end conflicts during the period of
1950-2004: peace agreement, ceasefire, victory, and other forms of
conflict terminations. The report showed that the effectiveness of peace
agreements in ending conflict is slightly lower (32%) than ceasefires
(38%). But the report also demonstrates that “although peace agreements
are less stable than victories, they lead to a much greater reduction in
battle deaths.” The research finds that more than an 80% drop in death
tolls after peace agreement even if the agreements fails and conflict
restarts. This effect does not apply to all other types of terminations.
Over all, a peace agreement is empirically more effective in stemming
violence by addressing root causes of violence. This process has
resulted in the dramatic drop of death tolls.
These studies give us good grounds to argue that in the long run
nonviolent resistance in Papua, particularly the call for peace
dialogue, is more likely to succeed than violent resistance. It is a
matter of time. But as these studies reveal, the international community
must play a significant role as a catalyst of peace processes. Now is
the time for the U.S. Congress to act and to endorse Papuan peace
initiatives. We cannot afford to sacrifice more lives for solvable
conflicts like Papua.
In 2010, the House subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific held the
first ever congressional hearing on West Papua. The hearing was
organized by Congressman Eni Faleomavaega to examine “Indonesia’s
deliberate and systematic abuses in Papua.”[26]
In line with Sultan Hamengkobuwono X, I believe that peace
negotiations will be a starting point to stop violence and to rebuild
Papua, although the negotiations may not be able to immediately solve
the problems of the market women or poor healthcare. Nonetheless, the
sign from President Yudhoyono of his willingness to engage with Papuans
is both encouraging and undermining. It is encouraging because it
illustrates how a protracted conflict can be resolved peacefully. But it
is also undermining our trust to Jakarta as the promise has a little
reality. This situation resonates with the responsibility of the
international community to act on its R2P.
Conclusions and recommendations
Therefore, we present you the following recommendations to consider:
Therefore, we present you the following recommendations to consider:
- To pass a U.S. Congress resolution urging the U.S. government to exercise its responsibility to protect in order to end crimes against humanity against West Papuan people;
- The same resolution should urge the Indonesia government to begin good faith negotiations with the Papua peace team with mediation by an international party;
- To support the Papuan peace team with logistical and research support through U.S.-based research and think tank institutes in order to develop its capacity to represent Papuans at peace negotiations;
- To request the U.S. administration to provide moral, political and necessary logistical support to the Yudhoyono administration to initiate peace negotiations with the Papuan peace team;
- To condition U.S. security assistance to Indonesia on ending human rights violations in West Papua and on whether the Indonesian government is negotiating in good faith with the people of West Papua.
Appendix
The Papua Peace Negotiation Team
The Papua Peace Negotiation Team
The Papua Peace Negotiation Team was
directly and democratically elected by Papuans during the Peace
Conference organized by the Papua Peace Network in Jayapura in 2011. Since 2012, the team has worked very closely with the Peacebuilding Compared
research project at the Australian National University led by Professor
John Braithwaite. The team is mandated to represent Papuans in
political negotiations with the Indonesian government.
Ms Leonie Tanggahma is a daughter of the late Ben
Tanggahma, Minister for Foreign Affairs in exile of the Republic of West
Papua which was unilaterally proclaimed by the Free Papua Movement
(OPM) in the 1970s. She was a liaison officer of the Papuan-based human
rights NGO ELSHAM in Europe, assisting in regular representation of the
Papuan case at United Nations forums such as the Working Group on
Indigenous Populations, the Commission on Human Rights (now the Human
Rights Council) and its sub-commission. At present she works as a
document management assistant in an international organization based in
the Netherlands.
Mr Octovianus Mote is the former head of Papua Bureau of Kompas,
the largest Indonesian daily. Following the meeting between 100 of
Papuan leaders and President B.J. Habibie in 1999, he left Papua for
exile in the US due to death threats by the Indonesian security
services. Granted asylum and US citizenship, since then he has
tirelessly lobbied the US Congress and the US government on the issue of
human rights in Papua and Indonesia more broadly. He is currently Tom
and Andy Berstein Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale Law School. He is
the secretary of the Papua Peace Team.
Dr Otto Ondawameis the Vice Chairman of the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation. He was born in 1953 in Wanamum, Mimika Regency, in West Papua. Ondawame was a member of the OPM and went into exile in 1979. He obtained his PhD degree in political science from the Australian National University in Canberra in 2000, an MSc degree from the University of Western Sydney in 1995, Graduate Diplomas from the University of Sydney in 1994 and Uppsala University in 1986 and a Bachelor of Arts degree from Cenderawasih University, West Papua, in 1976. Ondawame was a recipient of the 2001 Reconciliation Award, bestowed by the Australians Against Execution group, and the 1972 President Suharto Award for Academic Excellence.
In 2000, Ondawame joined the West Papua Project at the Centre for Peace
and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney as project
coordinator. Currently he is Coordinator for International Relations for
the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation operating from its
office in Port Vila, Vanuatu.
Mr Rex Rumakiek, born in Biak, is Secretary General
of the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation (WPNCL) and former
head of the Decolonisation Desk of the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre,
Suva. He lives in Canberra.
Mr Benny Wenda, born in Papua Central Highland, is the leader of the Koteka
Tribal Assembly. He lives in exile in Oxford, the United Kingdom. In
2003 he was granted political asylum by the British Government following
his escape from custody while on trial in West Papua.
Further contact (until June 2013): Budi Hernawan OFM (budi.hernawan) at the Regulatory Institutions Network, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 0200. Tel. +61-2-6125 7065.
[1] The author is a West Papuan leader living in exile who was
granted asylum and a US citizenship. He is the secretary of the Papuan
Peace Negotiators Team. See appendix.
[2] In this statement, the term “West Papua” refers to the Western
part of the Island of New Guinea which consists of two Indonesian
provinces of West Papua and Papua.
[3] See the most recent report here http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm?year=2012&dlid=204203#wrapper
[4] Faith-based Network for West Papua, “Human Rights in Papua 2010/2011” see
[4] Faith-based Network for West Papua, “Human Rights in Papua 2010/2011” see
[6] This footage appeared for the first time on YouTube on 17 October 2010 but then was removed on the following day. In its press release dated 17 October 2010 (). By 20 May 2013, the viewers reached 136,625.
[7] The cases of seven soldiers were filed in five different
dossiers. The first dossier no. PUT/ 186-K/PM.III-19/AD/IX/2010 includes
Private Sahminan Husein Lubis, Private Dwi Purwanto, and Private Joko
Sulistiono who were all sentenced to five month imprisonment. The second
dossier no. 187-K/PM.III-19/AD/IX/2010 contains the case of Lieutenant
Cosmos, the commandant of the group, who was sentenced to seven-month
imprisonment. The third dossier no. PUT/03-K/PM.III-19/AD/I/2011
contains the case of Private Tamrin Mahangiri who was sentenced to
eight-month imprisonment. The fourth dossier no.
PUT/04-K/PM.III-19/AD/I/2011 contains the case of Sergeant Irwan
Rizkyanto who was sentenced to ten-month imprisonment. Finally, the
dossier no. PUT/05-K/PM.III-19/AD/I/2011 contains the case of Private
Yakson Agu who was sentenced to nine month imprisonment.
[8] The appeal court decision no. 66-K/PMT.III/BDG/AD/XII/2010
reduced the sentence of Private Sahminan Husein Lubis, Private Dwi
Purwanto, and Private Joko Sulistiono from five to three month
imprisonment. The other soldiers did not appeal.
[9] For the discussion of the confusion of these two separate incidents, see Human Rights Watch analysis at http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/11/21/indonesia-stop-stalling-investigating-torture-video-episode-0 .
[10] See Hernawan, Y.B. 2013, “From the Theatre of Torture to the
Theatre of Peace: The Politics of Torture and Re-imagining Peacebuilding
in Papua, Indonesia” a PhD dissertation at the Australian National
University, Canberra, Australia.
[11] See Voice of America (VOA) interview http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2006-01-27-voa58/323573.html
[12] Brundige, E., Winter King, Priyneha Vahali, Stephen Vladeck & Xiang Yuan 2004, Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control, the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic, Yale Law School, New York.
[13] Elmslie, Jim, 2010. “West Papuan Demographic Transition and the
2010 Indonesian Census: ‘Slow Motion Genocide’ or not?” Sydney: Centre
for Peace and Conflict Studies of the University of Sydney.
[16] Presidential Decree No. 65/2011 see www.up4p.go.id
[17] This solidarity network consists of a mixed of elements within
Papuan society, including university students, activists, lectures,
religious leaders, lawyers who collaborate with the Papuan market women
to demand a market space for them http://www.facebook.com/groups/SOLPAP/
[21] For further information of the profile of this team, please see appendix enclosed.
[22] The Peacebuilding Compared research project is led by
Distinguish Professor John Braithwaite. It will cover up to 48 country
cases. The research will analyze peacebuilding strategies from diverse
contexts in search of keys to effectiveness. Restorative and responsive
regulatory theory, useful in many other domains, will be tested on
unique data on governance of peacebuilding. Each case will also stand
alone as a contextually rich account of successes and failures of
peacebuilding in that nation. The next stage of the project will focus
on 20 Asian and African case studies, with funding from the Australian
Research Council Discovery Scheme. See http://regnet.anu.edu.au/peacebuilding-compared/home
[23] See www.papuansbehindbars.org
for the most comprehensive and recent report of the status of the
Papuan political prisoners prepared by a coalition of Papuan and
international NGOs.
[24] See Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Republic of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement, 2005. Helsinki.
[26] [26] This is the first hearing ever held in regard to the situation of human rights in Papua. See http://www.house.gov/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/eniholdswestpapuahearing.html . A transcript can be found at http://etan.org/news/2010/09wpapuahearing.htm.
Source: http://wpan.wordpress.com/
Source: http://wpan.wordpress.com/