Roger Doriot firstname.lastname@example.org
http://www.rogerdoriot.com More pictures
Kdyby jste meli zajem, rad bych s Vami nekdy pokecal, mam to ted blizko.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Case Postale 2500
Genève 2 Dépôt
1st June 2006
Dear High Commissioner
I am a tribal leader from West Papua, and an international lobbyist on behalf of my country. Further to my letter of April 06, I am writing to you to express my continuing concern about the plight of my people, and to urge you to do all you can to help them. As you know, many West Papuans are forced to flee their homes as a result of violence and intimidation from the Indonesian authorities. Many cross the border to seek sanctuary in neighbouring Papua New Guinea, but many also remain within Papua, hiding out in the jungle.
I understand that the Indonesians have barred you from entering West Papua, and that you cannot provide direct help to these internally displaced people. However, I would urge you to continue to apply pressure to Indonesia to allow access, and also to do your utmost to investigate the situation in West Papua by interviewing people who are crossing the border in to PNG.
Secondly, I am concerned about reports that Indonesian intelligence and security services are crossing the border in to PNG. This is very worrying, as their presence seriously jeopardises the safety of West Papuan refugees. Please do all you can to monitor and control this situation, and ensure that the refugees who have already suffered so much do not have to live in fear again.
As a refugee myself, and a leader of my people, I feel very deeply for all those who have escaped to Papuan New Guinea and are attempting to rebuild their lives. I call on you to do everything you can to protect and help them.
"Papua Shrouded by Misperception",
Sidney Jones in The Australian Financial Review
29 August 2006
The Australian Financial Review
The crisis with Indonesia over Papuan asylum seekers is over for now, but the core problem hasn’t gone away. Many Australians continue to see Indonesia as a giant jackboot crushing valiant Papuan freedom fighters; many Indonesians continue to see Australia as the secret patron of Papuan separatists. In the midst of these suspicions, some important truths get lost.
Papua today is governed by Papuans
The area that politically correct Australians call West Papua is split into two provinces, Papua and West Irian Jaya. Both have indigenous governors, directly elected last March in reasonably fair elections with high turnouts. At the next administrative level down, there are now 29 regencies or municipalities, every one of which is headed by a Papuan. These officials are not puppets: they have real authority and real access to resources, indeed, sometimes too much. One common complaint now is not that Jakarta exercises too much control but too little, and shows no inclination to exert any oversight over absentee or corrupt local executives. Former president Soeharto did a miserable job of providing basic services outside urban areas, but Papuanisation of local government has produced its own set of problems, highlighting the woeful lack of skilled civil servants and the pull of ethnic and tribal loyalties.
Papua is awash in cash
The annual budget for all of Papua for fiscal year 2006 is 4 trillion rupiah (about $578 million, far more than the annual budget of East Timor) for a population of about 2.3 million. (Non-Papuan migrants constitute about 35 per cent of that total, according to UN figures.) All this money, much of it made possible by a 2001 law on special autonomy, has made Papua one of the wealthiest provinces per capita in Indonesia, yet its people remain the poorest, with close to half living below the poverty line. Obviously something is very wrong, but it’s not clear independence would fix it. The problem isn’t that Jakarta’s hoarding the money; it’s that there’s no capacity to introduce development programs that work, or to monitor local government spending.
It’s probably true that most Papuans, if asked, would favour independence, as an alternative to what they have now: poverty, disease and condescension, sometimes bordering on outright racism from many of the non-Papuans they encounter, particularly in the security forces. But independence is as much the idea of instant prosperity and freedom from abuse as it is the creation of a separate state, and there is little to suggest that either the small guerilla movement, the OPM, or the radical proindependence student movement responsible for recent protests in Jayapura, the Papuan capital, represent the Papuan people. The challenge for Indonesia is to allow a genuinely representative body to emerge that can articulate aspirations and grievances, and ensure that both will be heard in Jakarta.
The Indonesian military is not genocidal
The Indonesian armed forces have a largely deserved reputation for abuse and rapaciousness in Papua, but over the last five years, serious human rights violations have become more infrequent and usually in response to the use of violence by others. The real problem is not so much widespread killing and disappearances but chronic, low-level extortion and humiliation that could be addressed by better training, fewer troops, greater reliance on locally recruited civilian police, and attention by the Yudhoyono government to the lack of military accountability. Not only do many Australians seem to see the Indonesian army as evil incarnate and incapable of change, but, in rooting for the underdog, they also tend to see the OPM as credible and somehow pure. It’s not: the OPM is no more a reliable source than the military in terms of reporting on incidents, often less, and its members are no angels they have also engaged in hostage taking and other attacks on civilians.
Indonesians have got it wrong, too. Those who blame independence activities on Australian incitement have made no effort to understand the source or extent of Papuan resentment, and the malfeasance of every Indonesian administration since the Dutch handed over responsibility in 1963. Yudhoyono has promised much and thus far delivered little. It remains to be seen whether his government, and the two newly elected Papuan governors, with significant resources at their disposal, can turn things around.
Sidney Jones is South East Asia Project Director at the International Crisis Group
West Papua covers the western part of the world’s second largest
island, New Guinea, bordering the independent nation of Papua
Niugini (Papua New Guinea). Around 240 different indigenous
peoples live in West Papua, each with its own language and culture
closely related to those of the peoples in Papua Niugini.
In the late 19th century, West Papua became a Dutch colony while
the British controlled the northern and the German the southern parts
of the eastern half of the island. After World War II, the eastern half
was administered by Australia, and gained independence in 1975. The
Dutch government also recognized the Papuan peoples’ right to selfdetermination
according to article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations,
and made preparations for West Papua’s independence. Indonesia,
however, laid claim to West Papua, arguing that it was part of the
Dutch colonial territory. In an agreement between the Netherlands and
Indonesia, ratified by the UN General Assembly on 21 September 1962,
the Netherlands was to leave West New Guinea and transfer authority
first to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA)
and then, on 1 May 1963, to Indonesia. The Papuans were never consulted.
The Agreement stipulated that the Papuans had the right to
self-determination and that they would, within six years, and in a free
and fair manner, determine whether they wanted to remain under Indonesian
control or not. Indonesia, however, immediately established
tight military control of West Papua and, in 1969, in a staged “referendum”,
1,022 hand-picked people out of a population of one million
were made to publicly declare loyalty to Indonesia. The international
community turned a blind eye on this fraudulent “referendum”.
Ever since then, the Indonesian government has maintained a
strong military presence and has suppressed with brutal force any attempts
of the West Papuan people to assert their right to self-determi266
nation. Military operations have above all targeted the West Papuan
resistance movement, the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM - Free Papua
Movement), founded in 1965. At least 100,000 Papuans have been
killed and many more dispossessed and displaced by one of the most
brutal colonial regimes the world has ever seen.
Resource extraction and resettlement
The Indonesian government is extracting West Papua’s natural resources
on a large scale. Its forests are plundered and mineral deposits
exploited without any consultation of the indigenous communities,
and without any benefits flowing back to them. By means of a statesponsored
transmigration program that started in the 1970s, the Indonesian
government has resettled up to 10,000 families annually from
Java and other parts of Indonesia. In addition to this, an unknown
number of people have migrated on their own to West Papua. It has
been estimated that over 750,000 Indonesians have settled in West Papua,
now making up over 30% of the total population of 2.2 million. It
is feared that the Papuans will eventually become a minority in their
own land. Resource extraction and resettlement have resulted in dispossession
and numerous large-scale conflicts between the Papuans
and the Indonesian army.
Indigenous peoples’ survival threatened
Massive violations of human rights have been reported ever since West
Papua was occupied by Indonesia.1 The most recent comprehensive
report was launched on 18 August 2005 by the University of Sydney’s
Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies and Elsham, the Institute for Human
Rights Study and Advocacy, based in Jayapura, West Papua.2
Entitled “Genocide in West Papua? The role of the Indonesian state
apparatus and a current needs assessment of the Papuan people”, the
report documents the ongoing human rights abuses, systematic violence,
including rape, torture and destruction of property in the West
Papuan territory, occupied and claimed by Indonesia as one of its own
provinces. In the authors’ own words, it
details a series of concerns which, if not acted upon, may pose serious
threats to the survival of the indigenous people of the Indonesian province
of Papua. It covers the threats posed by the Indonesian military to the
province’s stability, the recent increase in large scale military campaigns
which are decimating highland tribal communities, the HIV/AIDS explosion
and persistent Papuan underdevelopment in the face of a rapid and
threatening demographic transition in which the Papuans face becoming
a minority in their own land.3
The report analyses in detail the role of the Indonesian security apparatus
in West Papua and comes to the unambiguous conclusion that
the Indonesian armed forces are the main source of suffering and instability
in the province.4
A ‘culture of impunity’ exists in Indonesia which sees its highest manifestation
currently in Papua and Aceh. Military operations have led to thousands
of deaths in Papua and continue to cost lives, yet the Republic’s
armed forces act as a law unto themselves with no real accountability for
crimes against the Papuan population. The report discusses a number of
areas of Indonesian security forces’ involvement, including: illegal logging
and corrupt infrastructure and construction work; destabilization and manipulation
of local politics, and orchestration of attacks blamed on pro-Papuan
independence groups; the introduction of illegal arms and militia
training and recruitment; and prostitution and the spread of HIV/AIDS.5
The deployment of 15,000 additional troops is planned for the period
2005 to 2009, which will bring troop presence up to between 45,000 and
50,000.6 It is part of the armed forces’ plan to set up a new division of
elite troops in West Papua. Most of these will be stationed in the border
area with Papua Niugini.
A new apartheid?
In their second chapter, the authors compare the restrictions on freedom
of movement imposed by the Indonesian state to the system of
apartheid in South Africa during the era before democratic elections
and self-rule. Restrictions include the difficulty of free movement due
to arbitrary acts on the part of the security apparatus, the requirement
to have a travel permit when traveling to one’s home village; arbitrary
detention without charge for unspecified and often lengthy periods;
Papuans who are members of the Indonesian army sometimes do not
receive arms; Papuans often have to wait years to get a job while newcomers
easily obtain one.
The demographic transition
As mentioned above, the Indonesian state has for decades been encouraging
and sponsoring large-scale migration to West Papua. OffiAUSTRALIA
cially, the migration program is a national government policy to develop
West Papua and peripheral regions. The report however states
that it leads to
a sharp inequity between migrants and locals. Papuans are becoming a
minority in their homeland, unable to compete and being further stressed.
Official transmigration programs and spontaneous migration alike have
led to a rapid increase of the non-Papuan population in Papua, outstripping
the Papuans, especially in district towns like Jayapura, which is
immediately apparent in areas like shopping centres.7
In transmigration areas, local communities lose their traditional
land rights. One example given is Arso district in Keerom region. In
1970, the population numbered no more than 1,000. By 2000, it had
reached around 20,000 and Papuans had become a marginalized
At the same time, low health standards and the bleak state of local
clinics, which are ineffective, under-equipped and lack trained staff,
result in high mortality rates among the Papuan population. Furthermore,
HIV/AIDS cases in Papua are rapidly increasing. The report
concludes that a “sustained, intensive, regular publicity program is
needed on the dangers of HIV/AIDS and how to prevent it. HIV/AIDS
will impact severely on the population growth and productive lives of
Failure of Special Autonomy
The report notes no noticeable progress with respect to the granting
of Special Autonomy as set out in the Special Autonomy Law of 2001.
Since the new government under President Yudhoyono came to power
in 2004, however, even mere symbols of Papuan nationalism, such
as the Morning Star flag and national anthem, have been denied once
more. Furthermore, the government’s proposal for an all-Papuan upper
house of the local parliament has greatly diluted the powers envisaged
for it in 2001, and provides for only 42 representatives. It is
utterly cynical that the Special Autonomy funds of the central government
should be used for military operations.10
At its Congress on 4 February 2005, the Papuan Customary Council
(Dewan Adat Papua, sometimes also referred to as the Papuan Tribal
Council) gave August 15 as the deadline for correcting the deficiencies
in the Special Autonomy Law. Dissatisfaction with the law
culminated in the council organizing demonstrations in many areas
of West Papua, demanding that the West Papuan provincial government
reject the unimplemented “special autonomy” offered by central
government. Between 15,000 and 20,000 people demonstrated in
the provincial capital, Jayapura, in support of the Papuan Customary
Human rights violations
According to the report, the human rights situation has deteriorated
further over the last two years.
Particularly destructive have been the series of military operations which
began in the Kiyawage area in 2003, then in the Puncak Jaya region in
2004/05 and since January 2005 in the Tolikara regency. According to the
results of an investigation released by the Baptist Church of Papua in
May 2005, military operations such as these have been cynically engineered
by the TNI [the Indonesian armed forces, ed.].
Apart from the operations making large numbers of people homeless and
leading to scores of deaths, the impacts have been exacerbated by poor
delivery of aid to the refugee communities. Yet the siphoning off of Special
Autonomy funds to the military to conduct these same operations, money
that was targeted to help the communities through health and education
projects, has made a tragic situation doubly evil.12
In September 2004, Law 27 was passed, providing for the establishment
of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission by the Indonesian
government. The authors of the report feel that President Yudohyono
is trying to resolve the human rights violations of the past in a reconciliatory
atmosphere but that “if no justice is served for the crimes in
Papua there could be a feeling of betrayal and profound disappointment,
compounding the lack of trust in Papua for Jakarta.”13
The authors of the report conclude with the following recommendations:
• Indonesia to immediately commence demilitarization of the Papuan
highlands, ending military campaigns and human rights
abuses, which have included extrajudicial killings, rape, torture,
arson, destruction and theft of property.
• Indonesia to cancel plans to deploy 15,000 additional troops to
Papua. Existing troops should be transferred from military security
operations against civilians to civil projects aimed at improving
• An international agency (such as the International Commission
of Jurists or Transparency International) to investigate the operation
and funding of the Special Autonomy Law in Papua,
including allegations by the Baptist Church of Papua concerning
misappropriation of Special Autonomy funds by the Indonesian
• An independent commission to inquire into the operation and
funding of the Special Autonomy Law.
• The UN Refugee Agency to request immediate access to the Papuan
highlands to assess the humanitarian needs of internally
displaced persons who have been forced to flee their homes and
villages as a result of army operations, especially in the Puncak
• Indonesia to grant access to UN mechanisms and international
parliamentary and human rights delegations to report on the
human rights situation in Papua.
• Indonesia to request international assistance in the investigation
of crimes allegedly linked to pro-independence groups.14
1 Source for the paragraphs above: West Papua Action home page (http://westpapuaaction.
buz.org/); West Papua Information Kit (http://www.cs.utexas.
edu/users/cline/papua/); Mines & Communities website (http://www.minesandcommunities.
org/Company/freeport6.htm); and J. Wing and P. King 2005
2 Wing, John, and Peter King, 2005: Genocide in West Papua? The role of the Indonesian
state apparatus and a current needs assessment of the Papuan people. The West
Papua Project, Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney, and
ELSHAM Jayapura, Papua. The report is the result of research carried out by the
authors during the years 2003 to 2005. It can be downloaded at http://www.
3 Ibid. p. v
4 Ibid. p. 2
5 Ibid. p. v
6 Tani Amemori, 2005: West Papua military build-up threatens Land of Peace. West-
Pan. Canada’s West Papua Action Network.
7 Ibid. p. 16
10 Ibid. pp. 13 and 19
11 Irian News 10/19/05 (Part 1 of 2). http://www.kabar-irian.com/pipermail/
12 Ibid. p. 19
13 Ibid. p. 14
14 Ibid. p. 25
Nehledě na to, že jsou věci daleko horší, než okukovat domorodce. Stačí zajít do obchodů s nábytkem a uvidíš spoustu stolů z teakového dřeva, vyrobeno vše v Indonésii ... padly další pralesy a území kde by mohly domorodci žít se zase zmenšilo. SPíše proti tomu bych brojil!
Kazdy by se sice mel zajimat o to, co vidi kolem co nejvice (sam jsem brojil ohledne nejakych plytkych az urazlivych prispevku), ale na druhou stranu by se svec mel drzet sveho kopyta, a pokud nekdo nema povolani "aktivista", nemusi to byt zrovna jeste "povyseny rasista, sirici ci schvalujici bidu". On Dany rad nekde nekomu vhodnym zpusobem prispeje, jen rekni jak si to presne predstavujes, at to tady zvazime.
nebylo treba hned psat knihu. znovu, jde o vahu, kterou prikladas jednotlivym informacim. co treba, kdybys misto odstavce o kanibalismu (ci promacenych pohorkach ;-)) napsal o opravdovych problemech etnika, ktere zminujes? dam ti priklad. budes psat o malych detech. tyto deti budou sexualne zneuzivany. nemyslis, ze je vaznejsim tematem jejich zneuzivani nez ze placou, cumlaji si palec a kakaji do plinek?
ja si naopak diskusi takto predtsavuji. kazdy reagujeme na nazory toho druheho. dany, tobe vadi moje posledni veta? vzdyt jsi sam napsal:"Mas pravdu, ze Jalium nase cesta nic primo neprinesla." komu tedy pokud ne tobe?
ted neco pro jirku - verim (navic, kdyz to tvrdis :-)), ze dany je kvalitni clovek a v zadnem pripade si ho nedovoluji kritizovat za nic jineho, nez co jsem jiz ucinil. tato kritika se nevztahuje pouze na nej. take chapu, ze to v mnohych z vas - turistech - vyvolava negativni pocity. samozrejme, jde to totiz primo do centra vaseho mysleni. chapu ze vase "ego" trpi. v jednom s tebou ovsem souhlasit nemohu. nemyslim, ze by cestovatele, ve velke vetsine, chteli domorodym lidem pomoci. pokud by tomu tak bylo, proc to nedelaji? nebo se mylim? ve vetsine pripadu pociti cestovatele, v dobe sve cesty, soucit. tento soucit vsak vetsinou rychle po navratu vyprcha...
deforestace pralesu je jiste vazne tema, stejne tak jako negativni dopad turismu. a tyto stranky prave o turismu jsou. navic, turismus a deforastace spolu svym zpusobem souvisi.
a nakonec - jirko, nejde mi o uznani pravdy. existuje snad nejaka? slo mi pouze o predlozeni jineho pohledu na vec. a podle tve reakce verim, ze se to povedlo.
mozna bys mohl i pripojit svoje zkusenosti nebo zminku o tom, odkud cerpas s takovou jistotou info o tom, jak ruzna temata (vlastnictvi pudy, navstevniky atd.) vnimaji papuansti domorodci.
alice in wonderland: to jsem rád, že jsi zpátky mezi diskutéry :)
Jenom me napadlo, ze by se ak47 mohl o svuj jiste zajimavy nazor podelit hezky v celku od zacatku do konce i s ostatnimi ctenari. Urcite by ho nasledovala zajimava diskuse ;-).
Tema je to samozrejme pomerne kontroverzni, tedy zalezi na "ideologii" HS, jestli se do nej chce poustet na main page nebo radeji v ustrani diskuse k clanku.