Indonesia: Will The Jakarta-Papua Dialogue Be Fruitful? – OpEd

By: IPCS

July 17, 2012

By Navrekha Sharma

International pressure is growing on Indonesian Government over its human rights record in Papua. A remote island one-fifth Indonesia’s size, Papua is unbelievably rich in natural resources but its one million people, mainly tribal Christians, are abysmally poor. Over three decades of its rule, Suharto’s military killed hundreds of tribals demanding rights to land and clean water etc, in low intensity conflicts in forested areas. But during the 14 years of democractic rule peoples ’disappointment with the Center has increased as conflict has expanded into urban areas too. Unfortunately, the Autonomy law of 2001 which provides for the bulk of locally generated revenues to be retained for local use, has seen its benefits cornered almost exclusively by a privileged few.

Since 2009, 43 people have been killed. The government claimed that some of those declared dead were security forces and at a UNHRCS quadrennial Review meeting last May, described Papua as “stable”. However, the capital Jayapura has witnessed sixteen shootings since then, in mysterious circumstances reminiscent of East Timor where the military acted with impunity. President Yudhoyono’s dubbing of the deaths as “small scale” was unhelpful and evoked angry reactions. A Presidential dialogue with Church leaders and developmental agencies initiated four months ago is going nowhere. Important sections of public opinion are pessimistic about Papua’s future.

East Timor’s Christian population, supported by well heeled international NGOs and media, had successfully swayed public opinion against Indonesia, culminating in a breakaway referendum in 1998/9 which took the Government by surprise. OPM leaders’ calls for freedom are similarly supported by NGOs, foreign and Indigenous. But before concluding that Papua will go the East Timor way, in Indonesia one can always expects the unexpected! Aceh, remote and resource-rich like Papua (but devoutly Muslim), saw longer years of neglect – of open war between the people and the State –ending peacefully after the tsunami hit in December 2004. The crisis was turned into an opportunity by Indonesia’s Government, assisted by International mediation and funding. In 2007, a former rebel leader was elected Aceh’s Governor!

Which of the two examples, East Timor or Aceh, is relevant to Papua? The answer lies in another question: why did the Government hold a referendum with secession as an option in East Timor but not in Aceh? Understanding the country’s political culture and the role of history and International law therein is vital.

The problem in East Timor coincided with ASEAN’s economic crisis of 1997/8 which got fully blown in Indonesia. Secondly, Indonesia’s accession of Portugal’s erstwhile colony in 1975 was not recognized by the UN under whom, Indonesia’s boundaries are limited to those of former Dutch East Indies. It was in these vulnerable circumstances, one economic and the other political, that President Habibie took the all- or -nothing gamble of a Referendum in East Timor. In contrast, Indonesia’s claim to Aceh, despite its longer and more violent secessionist struggle, was clear and unambiguous.

Some have tried contesting Indonesia’s hold on Papua on grounds of the “dodgy” Referendum of 1969, but its prompt endorsement by the UN had confirmed Indonesia’s right of possession. Moreover it took Indonesia’s first President and “political father” Sukarno, 13 years of protracted diplomatic and military struggle to retrieve Papua from Holland in 1962: since then, Papua lies at the core of Indonesia’s identity as a modern Nation. An Archipelagic State of 17000 separate Islands finds its main bulwark against disintegration in the law: neither President Yudhoyono nor any successor to him can surrender Papua without committing political hara kiri.

If political status is not negotiable, hence succession improbable, the possibility of Papua remaining indefinitely neglected and marginalized is real. Papuans are most backward people but their land is rich in gold, copper and hydro carbons, fisheries and forests. From early 1970s, international exploration was welcomed by Jakarta’s Government and its powerful but ill paid, military. The world’s largest gold mine and its second largest copper mine are in Papua, run by Freeport Mc Moran with 10 per cent Indonesian shareholding. Offshore oil and gas deposits are also plentiful. According to reliable reports (“Below a Mountain of Wealth, a River of Waste,” New York Times, 27 December 2005) over a billion tons of mineral waste and copper tailings have already been dumped directly into Papua’s rivers and 3 to 6 billion tons more waste is expected with consequent ill effects. Australia, with its interests in neighbouring PNG, some European countries and Canada challenge Papua’s human rights record, but the USA is careful to distance itself, declaring Papua as Indonesia’s “internal affair.”

Democracy has truncated the political role of Indonesia’s Armed Forces but in remote areas, the Territorial Command Structure, a Suharto era inheritance under which 70 per cent military funding is off-budget, remains intact. The new democratic dispensation puts police in charge of law and order and only secessionist violence (“treason”) justifies army’s presence. But with dismantling of operations in East Timor/Aceh, military’s strength in Papua has increased. Corruption here is endemic and increasingly well paid and the two arms are vying for a role in collusion with a tiny political elite.

Democracy has changed the form of exploitation in Indonesia but not its substance. In the absence of an act of God such as a tsunami (!) lip service by Jakarta to Dialogue with Papua will probably continue indefinitely.

Navrekha Sharma
Former Ambassador to Indonesia

About the author:
IPCS

IPCS (Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies) conducts independent research on conventional and non-conventional security issues in the region and shares its findings with policy makers and the public. It provides a forum for discussion with the strategic community on strategic issues and strives to explore alternatives. Moreover, it works towards building capacity among young scholars for greater refinement of their analyses of South Asian security.

Former Governor of Aceh Beaten Up Irwandi got hit in the face and head. Like

Irwandi Yusuf
Aries Setiawan | Selasa, 26 Juni 2012, 10:27 WIB


VIVAnews – Former governor of Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam, Irwandi Yusuf, was beaten up by some supporters of the Aceh Party following the inauguration of the new governor, Zaini Abdullah, and the deputy governor, Muzakir Manaf, on Monday, June 25.

Irwandi said the intimidation over him had been displayed earlier by Aceh Party's supporters since he arrived at the provincial parliamentary complex of Aceh.

“Words of insults were shouted by members of the Aceh Party as my name was being mentioned by the Minister of Home Affairs,” said Irwandi in a press statement received by VIVAnews on Tuesday.

As the event ended, he was glad that the new leadership in Aceh was officially established.

Seconds after, he greeted the crowd, who were mostly members of the Aceh Party. However, the greeting was not welcomed. The crowd yelled at him, saying that he had been a traitor.

“Unexpectedly, I was surrounded and attacked by a group of supporters of the Aceh Party. Some wore the uniform of the party’s task force,” he said.

He was beaten for a few minutes. He said that he got hit in the face and head.

Irwandi's bodyguards and the building's security guards got him out of the crowd and escorted him into a police car. He was then taken to a hospital.

“Even after the security guards took me to the emergency room in Zainoel Abidin Hospital, we were still being followed by the party’s supporters,” he said.

Prior to the inauguration, he said, the intelligence had specifically asked the elected deputy governor, Muzakkir Manaf, of Irwandi's safety. “Muzakir Manaf responded that my safety would be guaranteed,” he said.

Irwandi called for the Aceh Party to be responsible of the incident.

Indonesia and Australia's Relationship Has Room to Grow

Junianto James Losari and Santo Darmosumarto | July 06, 2012

'On investment cooperation, Indonesia remains Australia's biggest blind spot.'
Indonesia-Australia relations have grown steadily since their lowest point in the late 1990s. We have matured in our appreciation of one another as regional powers in this Asia-Pacific Century.

And tragedies like the Bali bombing and the Aceh tsunami have brought us closer as neighbors.

A recent survey by Australia’s Lowy Institute pointed out that most Indonesians rated Australia as one of the most trusted countries to act responsibly at the international stage.

However, as much as these conditions have augured better feelings of closeness, it is not difficult to see that bilateral cooperation has been overshadowed by issues in the political and security fields. While economic opportunities are abundant, Indonesia and Australia have yet to maximize on this potential.

This appears to be the message that President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono tried to convey during his visit to Darwin earlier this week, as part of the 2nd Annual Leaders Meeting.

Among the many areas of bilateral cooperation currently existing, Yudhoyono chose to focus on trade, investment, connectivity and tourism.

Indeed, in economic terms, Indonesia and Australia are not minnows. As emerging economies and part of the G-20, the two countries’ economic performance has in recent years commanded the attention of many around the world.

Not only that, there is considerable complement between the two economies, as shown by the differences in goods and services produced and consumed. These conditions should make the Indonesia-Australia economic partnership matter significantly. But the truth is that trade growth remains sluggish.

In 2011, the two countries recorded total trade of $10.75 billion. This is an increase compared to previous years’ numbers. But if we were to compare them against Australia’s trade with Malaysia ($13 billion), Thailand ($15.3 billion) or Singapore ($20.7 billion), then Indonesians and Australians should expect more from their growing ties.

On investment cooperation, Indonesia remains Australia’s biggest blind spot. Up until 2010, Australian foreign direct investment to Indonesia stands at $3.55 billion, which amounts to 1.4 percent of its total FDI abroad. More concerning, the realization of Australian FDI in Indonesia in 2011 actually decreased about 58 percent from the previous year.

With a population of approximately 240 million, Indonesian consumers and labor resources not only provide a lucrative market, but also tremendous potential for Australian investment.

We see this in Indonesia’s growing demand for beef, which is a result of the Indonesian people’s changing culinary habits and lifestyles.

As the growth of democracy complements economic achievements, the stable social and political conditions have generated a conducive domestic climate for greater foreign investment.

Nevertheless, while the numbers may not reflect Indonesia and Australia’s real economic potential, there are ways to boost this economic cooperation.

Indonesia’s entry-into-force of the Asean-Australia-New Zealand FTA this year is one of these means. Spanning 12 economies, around 600 million people and a combined GDP of $3.1 trillion, the AANZFTA covers the goods, services, investment and intellectual property sectors. While aimed at promoting the economic growth of all countries involved, the agreement should provide channels for enhancing trade and investment ties between Indonesia and Australia, which are by far the two largest economies in the group.

Tariff elimination under the AANZFTA will enable duty-free trade. Indonesian products benefitting from this arrangement include, wood, paper and paperboard, crude oil, plastic pipes and ceramics. Meanwhile, the benefitting Australian products include wheat, aluminum, cotton and fertilizer.

The AANZFTA also liberalizes investment in several areas for Australian companies, while at the same time providing a regime for the legal protection of investors. Such a framework, coupled with Indonesia’s positive investment climate, should provide sufficient reason for Australian companies to join efforts.

In addition, during the visit to Darwin, Yudhoyono welcomed efforts to begin negotiations for an Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Partnership Agreement. When completed, the agreement will provide a comprehensive, targeted framework for greater overall economic cooperation.

Among these targets would be to enhance connectivity at the national, bilateral and sub-regional levels. The strengthening of connectivity not only creates job opportunities through the investment in infrastructures, but also expands markets, trade flow and people-to-people connections.

Through participation in realizing Indonesia’s Master Plan for Expansion and Acceleration of Economic Development (MP3EI), Australia would not only assist Indonesia’s domestic connectivity, but also open opportunities for greater bilateral connectivity, particularly between Indonesia’s eastern parts and Australia’s Northern Territory.

The 1992 MoU signed between Indonesia and the Northern Territory is a basis for cooperation on primary and tertiary industries, air services, energy, professional services, manufacturing, processing, transport and infrastructure.

Government-to-government efforts will continue to evolve positively, yet the onus falls on the private sector to identify, grasp and maximize on these potential opportunities.