On 14 August 2024, members of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB) in the Dekai District, Yahukimo Regency, Papua Pegunungan Province, experienced acts of intimidation and unauthorised search by members of the 1715 Kodim (military district command) and Brimob (mobile brigade corps). The operation was led by Yahukimo Police Chief, Commissioner Heru Hidayanto. Six KNPB members were present at their office when the security forces arrived, resulting in a tense confrontation and forceful entry into the KNPB office.
The incident began with surveillance activities on 13 August 20214, with two vehicles monitoring the KNPB office. On August 14, the surveillance intensified. At 3:20 pm, a large contingent of security forces, comprising nine vehicles including armoured cars and patrol vehicles from various units, arrived at the KNPB office. Despite attempts by KNPB members to negotiate and clarify that no demonstrations were planned for 15 August 2024, the security forces forcibly entered the office without providing a warrant. They searched the office and took photographs of the premises. The operation concluded around 3:40 pm when the forces withdrew.
The incident raises serious concerns about respect for civil liberties, freedom of association, and the use of intimidation tactics against political activists in West Papua, Indonesia.
Security force vehicles approaching the KNPB office in the Dekai District, Yahukimo Regency, on 14 August 2024
Detailed Case Data name of the location: Dekai (-4.874653772472966, 139.48856096842403) administrative region: Indonesia, Papua Pegunungan Province, Yahukimo Regency, Dekai District total number of victims: six period of incident: 14.08.2024 perpetrator: police, other security forces perpetrator details: 1715 Kodim and Brimob Issues: freedom of expression, freedom of peaceful assembly, indigenous peoples, intimidation Sources: Further HRM News:
Number
Name, Details
Gender
Age
Group Affiliation
Violations
6
unknown
unknown
unknown
indigenous, activist
freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, intimidation
The Jakarta District Court heard the case of alleged bribery and gratification against suspended Papua governor Lukas Enembe on Monday with evidence from expert witnesses saying that an audit showed records
to be “clean and accurate”.
The hearing was convened to hear the testimony of three expert witnesses on the allegations against Governor Enembe.
The panel of judges heard the testimony of two experts Dr Muhammad Rullyandi, SH, MH (a constitutional law expert and lecturer at the Faculty of Law of Jayabaya University) and
Dr Eko Sambodo, SE, MM, Mak, CFrA (an expert in state finance and losses), and the third witness was due to be heard today.
The experts concluded that nine reports provided by the country’s state financial audit board during Enembe’s tenure as a governor did not contain any irregularities, or misreporting.
It was all “clean and accurate” within the framework of regulations and procedures, the witnesses said.
Complied with admin law According to Dr Rullyandi (Indonesians often have single names), the state financial management complied with administrative law, which was supervised by a state institution known as the Badan
Pemeriksa Keuangan (BPK), the State Financial Audit Board.
“The BPK is the final step in the state management process, starting with planning, implementation, and before accountability, it is under supervision,” Dr Rullyandi said.
Among the BPK’s responsibilities were the supervision of procurement and service contracting. When the BPK found criminal elements under its supervision, it reported them to the authorised agency r
equired by law, he said.
Dr Rullyandi said that this was regulated in Article 14 of Law No. 15 of 2004 concerning the Examination of State Financial Management and Responsibility.
Article 14 of Law No.15 of 2004 states:
(1) “IF CRIMINAL ELEMENTS ARE DETECTED DURING THE EXAMINATION, THE BPK SHALL MAKE AN IMMEDIATE REPORT TO THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS”.
Therefore, before the findings could be prosecuted as articles of bribery or gratification, they must first be tested by the BPK, which then reports them to law enforcement agencies.
Administrative rules That is the correct way of thinking, said the expert witness.
Law enforcement is not permitted to enter the administrative area while it is still in the administrative process. The law states that when administrative law enforcement occurs, law enforcement should not
enter before the BPK makes recommendations,” Dr Rullyandi continued.
The BPK audit report indicates that there were no criminal indications of financial irregularities during the term of Governor Lukas Enembe in regional financial management, including no alleged irregularities in
procurement processes for goods and services, which indicates that the principle of legal certainty was met.
According to Dr Rullyandi, initiation of the investigation process into an alleged criminal act of corruption against Governor Lukas Enembe was not based on BPK’s recommendations.
This means, from the beginning of the investigation until it was transferred to the court, investigators ignored Law No. 15 of 2004, especially Article 14. To enforce the law of corruption, relating to criminal norms regulating
bribery and gratification, administrative law norms must be considered.
This is accomplished by referring to Law No 1 of 2004 concerning the State Rreasury, which states in section weighing letter c that state financial administration law rules must govern state financial management and
accountability.
According to Dr Rullyandi, there is also a provision in Law No. 15 of 2004 pertaining to the Responsibility of State Financial Inspection and Management, which regulates how state finances are handled and held
accountable in the fight against criminal corruption.
Abuse of office allegations “Regarding allegations of abuse of office, Dr Rullyandi said the defendant did not possess the qualifications to abuse his position through bribery and gratification as stated in Articles 11, 12A, and 12B of the Law.
Law No. 31 of 1999 concerning the Eradication of Corruption, as amended by Law No. 20 of 2001.
It was due to the authority or power associated with Enembe’s position, which allowed him to move in order to do or not do something related to the procurement of goods and services. This was given as a result of or
caused by something he did or did not do in his position that violated his obligations.
His position as Governor and as user of the budget had been delegated and handed over to the powers of budget users and officials authorised to carry out the procurement committee for goods and services in accordance
with Article 18 of Law No. 1 of 2004 concerning the State Treasury.
Particularly, anyone signing or certifying documents related to the letter of evidence that is the basis for the expenditure on APBN / APBD is responsible for its content and consequences.
According to Dr Eko Sambodo’s testimony, if a province [such as Papua] had been given nine times the Unqualified Fair Opinion (abbreviated WTP), administratively, all of them had been managed in accordance with
relevant regulations, accountability, and accounting standards.
“When it comes to managing finances, it has been audited, so there are no regulatory violations,” Dr Sambobo said.
Governor Enembe’s senior lawyer, Professor OC Kaligis, asked the witness whether this opinion of the WTP could be used as evidence, that corruption did not exist in the province.
The witness replied that in auditor terms, corruption was known as irregularities. Deviation causes state losses.
It means that everything has been done according to and within regulations, including governance, compilers, and reports. It also means that expenditures have been proven, clarifications have been made, all of which
contribute to its final report.
“This is all WTP offers,” said Dr Sambobo. Under the leadership of Governor Enembe, Papua province won the WTP opinion nine times consecutively.
Another expert opinion was due to be heard in court today.
Witness’s testimonies in Court The court completed hearing witnesses last week (Monday, August 21), who testified to their involvement or knowledge of the alleged bribery, gratification, and corruption scandal.
Out of 184 witnesses, only 17 were brought to court, and only 1 had any connection with Governor Enembe. Sixteen of these witnesses testified as to not have any connection to Enembe.
Only one witness linked to the governor’s name, Prijatono Lakka, a pastor and Enembe’s assistant, who sent Enembe one billion rupiah (NZ$105,000) to cover medical expenses through governor’s personal funds,
resulting in an array of allegations, his arrest, and the ongoing process.
To date, no witnesses have emerged to provide testimony or evidence concerning all the alleged wrongdoings and misconduct of Lukas.
Although the governor’s health has improved somewhat, his condition is still critical. The governor’s lawyers continues to ask the judge to detain him in the city for medical treatment and to allow medical specialists
outside of the control of Corruption Eradication Commission (acrynomed KPK) to treat him in a free environment.
However, these requests have not been responded to. Currently, the governor is confined to the prison cells of KPK.
He is secheduled to appear in court next week on Monday to bring the final stages of this protracted legal drama to closure.
Lukas Enembe’s term as Papua’s provincial Governor will end during early September — next week.
Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report.
From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
by Johni Korwa and Barrisen Rumabar 18 September 2024
Towards the end of Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s tenure, he and Papua New Guinean Prime Minister James Marape stepped up cross-border cooperation between Indonesia and PNG by signing four Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), on 15 July 2024.
Two of the MoUs are particularly attention-grabbing: the agreements on Cross-Border Movement for Commercial Buses and Coaches, and on Cross-Border Transport of Goods by Motor Vehicles. They are unprecedented in the history of bilateral relations between Indonesia and PNG, overcoming a long-standing reluctance to permit public transport across the border. However, the agreements are limited to the cities of Jayapura and Vanimo, located on either side of the border in the northern part of New Guinea.
These MoUs undoubtedly pave the way for increased cooperation between the two countries, offering significant benefits to the people living in Jayapura and Vanimo, who now have access to public transport for crossing the border.
From a regional perspective, these agreements reflect Indonesian foreign policy under the Jokowi administration, which sought to strengthen ties with the Pacific community, with PNG serving as a notable example. From a local perspective, this breakthrough marks a significant step in the sister-city cooperation between Jayapura and Vanimo, which has been renewed for a second term since 2016.
While this breakthrough represents progress, several challenges remain. First, road conditions pose a challenge, particularly on the PNG side, between the Wutung border post and Vanimo city, a journey which takes approximately 1.5 hours by taxi. Several bridges along this route are susceptible to river water flowing over the upper surface — worse during the rainy season — which can make driving hazardous for those without the special skills to navigate safely.
Another important consideration is transnational crime. Local news often reports on smugglers transporting marijuana from Vanimo to Jayapura using unofficial land routes, boats, or even attempting to cross via the official border posts. While we often hear about those who are apprehended, there is concern about those who slip through. With these MoUs increasing interaction between the two communities and making cross-border public transport more frequent, security measures need to be strengthened — both before boarding public transport and at the border — to deter smugglers effectively.
The new cross-border public transport agreement will significantly increase the flow of people. An increased number of individuals from PNG will travel to Indonesia through Jayapura for various reasons, including family visits and sightseeing — though shopping will likely be the primary allure. The Skouw market at the border is already a popular destination, and this new cross-border transport option is expected to attract even more PNG visitors to Jayapura.
To ensure mutual benefits to both countries, this new transport arrangement should embrace the concept of reciprocity. A much larger traditional market near the Wutung border post would attract more people from the Indonesian side. Additionally, there is an opportunity to develop more tourist attractions in Vanimo City to appeal to more Papuans and Indonesians, offering more than the mere purchase of items such as sausages, cornets, or Twisties.
Travel documentation is another crucial consideration, as crossing the Indonesian-PNG border requires either a type of border crossing pass — commonly known as the red and yellow cards — for individuals residing along the border, or a passport for those not classified as border residents. The border crossing pass is typically used for traditional purposes and within specific distances. However, with the new MoUs permitting commercial buses and motor vehicles to enter Jayapura or Vanimo, it is essential to establish clear immigration arrangements to manage the movement of people and goods effectively. Additionally, reducing visa fees from both countries would help facilitate this new cross-border public transport arrangement.
While these two MoUs on cross-border movement by public transport have yet to be implemented, there is no doubt that they represent a significant breakthrough in Indonesia-PNG relations. What needs to happen now is the effective implementation of these agreements, taking into account the more critical issues along with any other considerations, to ensure tangible benefits for both Jayapura and Vanimo, as well as Indonesia and PNG more generally.
West Papuan independence advocate Octo Mote is in Aotearoa to win support for independence for West Papua, which has been ruled by Indonesia for over 60 years.
Mote is the vice-president of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), and is being hosted in New Zealand by the Green Party, which Mote said had always been a hero for West Papua.
ULMWP president Benny Wenda has alleged more than 500,000 Papuans have been killed since the occupation, and millions of acres of ancestral forests, rivers and mountains have been destroyed or polluted for “corporate profit”.
The struggle for West Papuans
“Being born a West Papuan, you are already an enemy of the nation,” Mote said.
“The greatest challenge we are facing right now is we are facing the colonial power who live next to us.”
If West Papuans spoke up about what was happening, they were considered separatists, Mote said, regardless of whether they were journalists, intellectuals, public servants or even high-ranking Indonesian generals.
“When our students on the ground speak of justice, they’re beaten up, put in jail and [they – Indonesians] kill so many of them,” Mote said.
Mote is a former journalist and said, while he was working, he witnessed Indonesian forces openly fire at students who were peacefully demonstrating their rights.
“We are in a very dangerous situation right now. When our people try to defend their land, the Indonesian government ignores them and they just take the land without recognising we are landowners,” he said.
The ecocide of West Papua
The ecology in West Papua was being damaged by mining, deforestation, and oil and gas extraction. Mote said Indonesia wanted to “wipe them from the land and control their natural resources”.
He said he was trying to educate the world that defending West Papua meant defending the world, especially small islands in the Pacific.
West Papua is the western half of the island of New Guinea, bordering the independent nation of Papua New Guinea. New Guinea has the third-largest rainforest after the Amazon and Congo and is crucial for climate change mitigation as they sequester and store carbon.
Mote said the continued deforestation of New Guinea, which West Papuan leaders were trying to stop, would greatly impact the small island countries in the Pacific, which were among the most vulnerable to climate change.
Mote also said their customary council in West Papua had already considered the impacts of climate change on small island nations and, given West Papua’s abundance of land, they said by having sovereignty they would be able to both protect the land and support Pacific Islanders who needed to migrate from their home islands.
In 2021 West Papuan leaders pledged to make ecocide a serious crime and this week Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa submitted a court proposal to the International Criminal Court to recognise ecocide as a crime.
Support from local Indonesians
Mote said there were Indonesians who supported the indigenous rights movement for West Papuans. He said there were both NGOs and a Papuan Peace Network founded by West Papuan peace campaigner Neles Tebay.
“There is a movement growing among the academics and among the well-educated people who have read the realities, among those who are also victims of the capital investors, especially in Indonesia when they introduced the omnibus law.”
The omnibus law was passed in 2020 as part of the president’s goals to increase investment and industrialisation in Indonesia. The law was protested because of concerns it would be harmful for workers due to changes in working conditions, and the environment because it would allow for increased deforestation.
He said there was an “awakening” especially in the younger generations who were more open-minded and connected to the world, who could see it both as a humanitarian and an environmental issue.
The ‘transfer’ of West Papua to Indonesia
“The Dutch [traded] us like a cow,” Mote said.
The former Dutch colony was passed over to Indonesia in 1963 but ULMWP calls it an invasion.
From 1957, the Soviet Union had been supplying arms to Indonesia and, during that period, the Indonesian Communist Party had become the largest political party in the country.
The US engineered a meeting between both countries, which resulted in the New York Agreement, giving control of West Papua to the UN in 1962 and then Indonesia a year later.
The New York Agreement stipulated that the population of West Papua were entitled to an act of self-determination.
The ‘act of no choice’
This decolonisation agreement was titled the 1969 Act of Free Choice, which is referred to as “the act of no choice” by pro-independence activists.
Mote said they witnessed, “how the UN allowed Indonesia to cut us into pieces, and they didn’t say anything when Indonesia manipulated our right for self-determination.”
The manipulation Mote refers to is for the Act of Free Choice. Instead of a national referendum, the Indonesian military hand-picked 1,025 West Papuan “representatives” to vote on behalf of the 816,000 people. The representatives were allegedly threatened, bribed and some were held at gunpoint to ensure a unanimous vote.
Leaders of the West Papuan independence movement assert that this wasn’t a real opportunity to exercise self-determination as it was manipulated. However, it was accepted by the UN.
Pacific support at UN General Assembly
Mote has came to Aotearoa after the 53rd Pacific Island Leaders Forum meeting in Tonga and has come to discuss plans over the next five years. Mote hopes to gain support to take what he calls the “slow-motion genocide” of West Papua back to the UN General Assembly.
“In that meeting we formulated how we can help really push self-determination as the main issue in the Pacific Islands,” Mote said.
Mote said there was focus on self-determination of West Papua, Kanaky/New Caledonia and Tahiti. He also said the focus was on what he described as the current colonisation issue with capitalists and global powers having vested interests in the Pacific region.
The movement got it to the UN General Assembly in 2018, so Mote said it was achievable. In 2018 Pacific solidarity was shown as the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and the Republic of Vanuatu all spoke out in support of West Papua.
They affirmed the need for the matter to be returned to the United Nations, and the Solomon Islands voiced its concerns over human rights abuses and violations.
What needs to be done
He said in the next five years Pacific nations needed to firstly make the Indonesian government accountable for its actions in West Papua. He also said President Joko Widodo should be held accountable for his involvement.
Mote said New Zealand was the strongest Pacific nation that would be able to push for the human rights and environmental issues happening, especially as he alleged Australia always backed Indonesian policies.
He said he was looking to New Zealand to speak up about atrocities taking place in West Papua and was particularly looking for support from the Greens, Labour and Te Pāti Māori for political support.
The coalition government announced a plan of action on July 30 this year, which set a new goal of $6 billion in annual two-way trade with Indonesia by 2029.
“New Zealand is strongly committed to our partnership with Indonesia,” Foreign Affairs Minister Winston said then.
“There is much more we can and should be doing together.”
The paperwork signing late last month by Defence Minister Richard Marles and his Indonesian counterpart Prabowo Subianto in Magelang (Central Java) is being paraded as an extraordinary advance in relationships. It’s not.
Why is this dud deal being sold like a Nobel Prize? Because scores of news outlets here and overseas are cutting-and-pasting press releases. In effect, much media has become a PR team for the government betraying voters.
Some facts to underpin this shameful assertion:
For the past two years, bureaucrats have been to-ing and fro-ing with the Australia-Indonesia Defence Cooperation Arrangement. Now ratified, it has become an “agreement”.
We, the Fourth Estate, aka chooks (as former Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen called us hacks), haven’t had a peep inside the thick covers and so have to take what’s fed.
Something more nutritious may come if independent experts get the full text to decode definitions and reveal what we’ve sold to appease our huge neighbour.
Marles’ media says the deal is about complex joint activities and exercises. The two militaries can “operate from each other’s countries for mutually determined cooperative activities” and swap soldiers for education and training in science and technology, though these are not disciplines where Indonesia is internationally admired.
Much hullabaloo so the lads can don camouflage and play in the same sandpit – something they’ve done before and are doing now.
Through design or coincidence, that signing night ABC Australia telecast the 90-minute documentaryCircle of Silence with Indonesian subtitles. It’s the story of the Balibo Five journalists in East Timor, killed in 1975 by Indonesian soldiers who knew the men were reporters.
Marles’ opposite number is also president-elect and will take over in October. He’s a former general with a dark past allegedly involving human rights abuses.
Researcher Pat Walsh, who was involved with the East Timor truth commission report, Chega! wrote: “As a member then a commander of Kopassus, Prabowo undertook at least four tours of duty in East Timor… (he was) anything but an innocent or bit player.
“Kopassus is the Indonesian military’s secretive ‘special operations’ force. It specialises in unconventional warfare, counter-insurgency, intelligence gathering and anti-terrorism.
“In plain English, locals are recruited and bribed to do Kopassus’s dirty work and, if necessary, to take the blame.”
(It is not suggested that Prabowo killed the Balibo Five. He has never been charged with war crimes.)
In 1998, he was cashiered for disobeying orders so he ran away to exile in Jordan. That fact has rarely been mentioned since he was convincingly elected in February with a 58% majority.
Ten days before the Magelang signing, Prabowo came to Canberra, ostensibly to approve the “arrangement”. But according to the AFR’s James Curran, his real mission was for “more Australian involvement in the Indonesian economy, especially in agriculture and countering narcotics”.
Apart from watching body language and facial expressions, why did any media bother to front the Canberra show? Journos were told “no questions”, suggesting the ministers fear inquiries and are unable to be straight with their employers, the public.
The men’s minders know any professional would ask Prabowo about blood on his hands, and his resulting fury would destroy the “arrangement”.
Transcribed texts show the two sides are not on the same page.
Marles said it was “profoundly historic” and “the deepest, the most significant agreement that our two countries have ever made”.
Profoundly nonsensical. In 1995, former prime minister Paul Keating secretly signed the Agreement on Maintaining Security with dictator and second president Soeharto.
That was a biggie, though four years later it was shredded by his successor, Bacharuddin Jusuf ‘BJ’ Habibie. He was furious the Australian-led peacekeeping force had entered Timor after the people had voted 8-2 to free themselves from Indonesian control.
Marles and Anthony Albanese said four times that their “arrangement” was about “security”. Prabowo used the word once and prefaced it with “food”. The best label he could muster was a “good neighbour agreement”.
Apart from language slippage, what’s not mentioned in diplomatic back-slaps is often more important. Absent was Australia’s new agreement with the US for their fighters, bombers and spy planes to use NT bases.
Also not in the handouts was Indonesia’s proposed law to let “active-duty personnel hold positions in civilian government ministries and agencies”.
If passed, the Republic will return to the last century dwifungsi (dual function) policy of soldiers controlling domestic departments irrespective of their skills and merits. (In most Western democracies civilian and military affairs are kept apart.)
Also ignored was the Indonesian military’s actions in West Papua, a prolonged and brutal campaign against independence seekers that’s allegedly taken thousands of lives.
Instead, Prabowo stressed that whatever subtexts might be imagined, there would be no revision of the county’s neutrality:
“As you know we are, by tradition, non-aligned. By tradition, our people do not want us to be involved in any geopolitical or military alliances or groupings. I myself, am determined to continue this policy.”
If Indonesians thought their nation was secretly sliding into the US camp through a deal with the region’s “deputy sheriff”, riots would result and Marles’ arrangement trashed.
He’s already crept close. In The Washington Post the Marles reportedly said: “We’re working together (with the US) to deter future conflict and to provide for the collective security of the region in which we live.”
While many elsewhere-based reporters parroted Marles media, The Australian’s Jakarta correspondent Amanda Hodge got her cautions buried on page four but accurately reflected the Jakarta view that the arrangement falls “well short of a mutual security guarantee” and without the weight of a “visiting forces agreement”.
Another realist was the ABC’s Stephen Dziedzic, noting Prabowo only said the two countries had made “great progress” in “ironing out legalistic details” in the arrangement. That’s the job negotiators are paid to perform.
While Marles was in Central Java about 200 Australian troops were dashing around East Java’s north coast in the two-week Super Garuda Shieldexercises. Also with the Diggers are almost 2,000 US Marines, supposedly thinking about cyber threats plus toys that go bang.
In the smog of industrial Sidoarjo are sweating soldiers from NZ, Singapore, Canada, France, Thailand and the UK. Not China this time, though the PRC participated in 2009.
Before The Australian implies this means Indonesia is in the Western camp and the signings aimed at “countering growing Chinese threats”, Lachlan Murdoch should know this:
The annual fun-with-guns games have been underway since 2006; next year Beijing’s troops will be starring in yet another “bilateral training exercise”.
If this wasn’t so serious, the idea of Grunts helping Indonesia, then their Chinese equivalents doing the same thing would be a fine film plot. Title suggestion: Dancing with Demagogues.
Duncan Graham
Duncan Graham has been a journalist for more than 40 years in print, radio and TV. He is the author of People Next Door (UWA Press). He is now writing for the English language media in Indonesia from within Indonesia. Duncan Graham has an MPhil degree, a Walkley Award, two Human Rights Commission awards and other prizes for his radio, TV and print journalism in Australia. He lives in East Java.
Between the earthquake at the beginning and the communiqué kerfuffle at the end, the 53rd Pacific Islands Forum Leaders Meeting (PIFLM) ran smoothly enough and presented as a largely harmonious affair. It was one of the biggest, with over 1,000 delegates, activists, observers, and journalists travelling to Nuku’alofa from across the world. Of the 18 Forum member countries, all were present bar one: President Taneti Maamau of Kiribati was unable to attend as his country is in the midst of elections.
In his opening address to the meeting, Forum Secretary-General Baron Waqa stated “the time for talking is now over – we need to see action”. While these words were largely directed to Forum partners, they also provide a benchmark against which the outcomes of the PIFLM can be judged.
As reported by Kalafi Moala, one of the most significant action points for the PIF was the establishment of the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF). But attempts to persuade extra-regional partners to contribute to the capitalisation of this facility are meeting with mixed results. The European Union remains a non-starter – the EU Commissioner for International Partnerships, Jutta Urpilainen, said “we are exploring opportunities” to be able to contribute to the PRF and, according to a senior UK official, “the UK has committed technical assistance to the value of £1.3 million (US$1.72 million) to setting up and structuring the PRF … UK funding and budgetary processes prevent us from a direct pledge to the PRF until it is fully established, and financial formalities are finalised”.
There were several additions to the Forum’s agenda at this meeting. The situation in New Caledonia was high profile and has been discussed extensively elsewhere. Perhaps less headline-grabbing was the addition of both health and education as standing agenda items, as proposed by the incoming chair, Prime Minister Siaosi Sovaleni of Tonga. The communiqué’s only substantive action point in these areas was an agreement to “develop a comprehensive region-wide health workforce strategy that focuses on quality training and retention measures for consideration by Pacific Health Ministers” (s.16).
There is no denying the importance of these issues in the Pacific. However, loading them onto the leaders’ agenda appears to go against the spirit of the Morauta review of 2013, which was to use this annual summit for issues that required collective political decision-making at the highest level. It should be recalled that in 2015, as part of the implementation of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism (FPR), the submission and filtering process for agenda items was such that a group of just five made the cut: climate change, fisheries, West Papua, ICT, and cervical cancer.
It is not surprising that the elements of the leaders’ agenda have changed in the years since then. Cervical cancer has faded away. Many other items have made their way through a variety of officials’ and ministerial processes to end up in front of the leaders. However, if Morauta’s principles are to be preserved, there should be a renewed commitment to handing off issues – including those that are the pets of the chair – to better homes. They could be pursued through an appropriate ministerial meeting or as part of the work program of a more technical regional agency such as the Pacific Community.
The creeping flabbiness of the agenda, combined with the disruption caused by geopolitical competition, has led to important issues not being progressed in a timely manner. Last year in Rarotonga, leaders requested that the Review of Regional Architecture be concluded for their consideration this year; this has not been achieved. Also last year, leaders considered the idea of a “Zone of Peace” as put forward by Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka of Fiji and tasked the Secretariat to further develop it for their consideration in 2024. Come this year’s communiqué and the concept has advanced little. It is now termed the “Ocean of Peace”, and the Secretariat is requested to develop a draft concept for consideration ahead of the gathering next year in Solomon Islands.
As these deferrals and timeline extensions accumulate, the ability of the Pacific Islands Forum to maintain focus and achieve political outcomes is undermined. The case of West Papua provides a striking example. In this year’s communiqué, it merits just one line in which the report of the special envoys (prime ministers James Marape of PNG and Rabuka of Fiji) was “noted”. At the closing press conference, the troika (comprising the leaders of Cook Islands, Tonga and Solomon Islands) said that they were “planning to make sure” a visit to West Papua by Forum special envoys took place before the next meeting. The details of how they are going to make that happen have not yet been disclosed.
by Johni Korwa and Barrisen Rumabar 18 September 2024
Towards the end of Indonesian President Joko Widodo’s tenure, he and Papua New Guinean Prime Minister James Marape stepped up cross-border cooperation between Indonesia and PNG by signing four Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs), on 15 July 2024.
Two of the MoUs are particularly attention-grabbing: the agreements on Cross-Border Movement for Commercial Buses and Coaches, and on Cross-Border Transport of Goods by Motor Vehicles. They are unprecedented in the history of bilateral relations between Indonesia and PNG, overcoming a long-standing reluctance to permit public transport across the border. However, the agreements are limited to the cities of Jayapura and Vanimo, located on either side of the border in the northern part of New Guinea.
These MoUs undoubtedly pave the way for increased cooperation between the two countries, offering significant benefits to the people living in Jayapura and Vanimo, who now have access to public transport for crossing the border.
From a regional perspective, these agreements reflect Indonesian foreign policy under the Jokowi administration, which sought to strengthen ties with the Pacific community, with PNG serving as a notable example. From a local perspective, this breakthrough marks a significant step in the sister-city cooperation between Jayapura and Vanimo, which has been renewed for a second term since 2016.
While this breakthrough represents progress, several challenges remain. First, road conditions pose a challenge, particularly on the PNG side, between the Wutung border post and Vanimo city, a journey which takes approximately 1.5 hours by taxi. Several bridges along this route are susceptible to river water flowing over the upper surface — worse during the rainy season — which can make driving hazardous for those without the special skills to navigate safely.
Another important consideration is transnational crime. Local news often reports on smugglers transporting marijuana from Vanimo to Jayapura using unofficial land routes, boats, or even attempting to cross via the official border posts. While we often hear about those who are apprehended, there is concern about those who slip through. With these MoUs increasing interaction between the two communities and making cross-border public transport more frequent, security measures need to be strengthened — both before boarding public transport and at the border — to deter smugglers effectively.
The new cross-border public transport agreement will significantly increase the flow of people. An increased number of individuals from PNG will travel to Indonesia through Jayapura for various reasons, including family visits and sightseeing — though shopping will likely be the primary allure. The Skouw market at the border is already a popular destination, and this new cross-border transport option is expected to attract even more PNG visitors to Jayapura.
To ensure mutual benefits to both countries, this new transport arrangement should embrace the concept of reciprocity. A much larger traditional market near the Wutung border post would attract more people from the Indonesian side. Additionally, there is an opportunity to develop more tourist attractions in Vanimo City to appeal to more Papuans and Indonesians, offering more than the mere purchase of items such as sausages, cornets, or Twisties.
Travel documentation is another crucial consideration, as crossing the Indonesian-PNG border requires either a type of border crossing pass — commonly known as the red and yellow cards — for individuals residing along the border, or a passport for those not classified as border residents. The border crossing pass is typically used for traditional purposes and within specific distances. However, with the new MoUs permitting commercial buses and motor vehicles to enter Jayapura or Vanimo, it is essential to establish clear immigration arrangements to manage the movement of people and goods effectively. Additionally, reducing visa fees from both countries would help facilitate this new cross-border public transport arrangement.
While these two MoUs on cross-border movement by public transport have yet to be implemented, there is no doubt that they represent a significant breakthrough in Indonesia-PNG relations. What needs to happen now is the effective implementation of these agreements, taking into account the more critical issues along with any other considerations, to ensure tangible benefits for both Jayapura and Vanimo, as well as Indonesia and PNG more generally.
The Indonesian government’s ambitious plan to create a one-million-hectare rice field in the Merauke Regency, Papua Selatan Province, is moving forward without proper consultation with indigenous communities and despite significant environmental risks. On 12 July 2024, the Minister of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), Siti Nurbaya, issued Minister of Environment and Forestry Decree No. 835 of 2024 on Approval of Forest Area Use for Food Security Facilities and Infrastructure Development Activities in the Framework of Defence and Security on behalf of the Indonesian Ministry of Defence covering 13,540 hectares of Protected Forest Area, Permanent Production Forest Area and Convertible Production Forest Area in Merauke Regency.
The project, part of the National Strategic Project (PSN), has seen the arrival of hundreds of excavators and heavy equipment, raising alarm among human rights and environmental organisations. According to the information received, the project coordinator, the Indonesian entrepreneur Mr Andi Syamsuddin Arsyad aka. Haji Isam, ordered a total of 2,000 excavators from China to implement the project. HRM received photos and videos showing the arrival of excavators in the project area by ship. One video shows the excavators clearing large areas of land (see videos and photos below, source: independent HRDs).
The project gravely violates the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC), a fundamental right of indigenous peoples. According to press relese published on 13 September 2023 by the Indonesian foundation ‘Pusaka Bentala Rakyat’ (PUSAKA), local indigenous Malind communities, including the Gebze Moywend and Gebze Dinaulik clans, report that their lands, hamlets, and customary forests have been seized without any prior deliberation or consensus. This blatant disregard for indigenous rights is further exacerbated by the presence of armed military personnel securing the project implementation.
The indigenous Malind people, holding the customary land rights in the project area, have firmly rejected all forms of corporate investment on their customary lands. This unified stance was declared by various Malind communities in response to the Indonesian government’s National Strategic Project aiming to establish sugar and bioethanol self-sufficiency and a food barn project spanning millions of hectares in Merauke. Indigenous communities have expressed deep concerns about the potential loss of their lands, forests, and cultural heritage to large-scale development projects.
This rejection highlights the ongoing struggle for indigenous rights and environmental preservation in West Papua. The communities’ concerns stem from past negative experiences with corporate interventions and fears of marginalisation and cultural erosion. The call for intervention from the South Papua People’s Assembly and the Merauke Regional Government emphasizes the need for government accountability and respect for indigenous rights in development planning, urging a re-evaluation of national strategic projects that potentially violate human rights.
Environmental concerns are equally pressing. The project area overlaps with 858 hectares of natural forests and peatlands, as indicated in the Indicative Map of the Termination of Business Licensing (PIPPIB). The large-scale destruction of these ecosystems will significantly increase carbon emissions, directly contradicting Indonesia’s commitments to reduce greenhouse gases. The lack of transparency and the absence of an FPIC-based consultation with indigenous communities support allegations that the project lacks proper environmental impact assessments and approvals. Affected communities and environmental organisations have not been involved in discussions or received information on environmental documents.
The Merauke Food Estate project exemplifies a worrying development trend at the expense of indigenous rights and environmental sustainability. It is crucial for the Indonesian government to reevaluate the project, prioritizing inclusive, just, and sustainable development that respects the rights of indigenous peoples and preserves critical ecosystems. Failure to do so will inevitably undermine global efforts to combat climate change and preserve biodiversity on our planet.
Arrival of first excavators in Merauke in mid-August 2024
West Papuan independence advocate Octo Mote is in Aotearoa to win support for independence for West Papua, which has been ruled by Indonesia for over 60 years.
Mote is the vice-president of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), and is being hosted in New Zealand by the Green Party, which Mote said had always been a hero for West Papua.
ULMWP president Benny Wenda has alleged more than 500,000 Papuans have been killed since the occupation, and millions of acres of ancestral forests, rivers and mountains have been destroyed or polluted for “corporate profit”.
The struggle for West Papuans
“Being born a West Papuan, you are already an enemy of the nation,” Mote said.
“The greatest challenge we are facing right now is we are facing the colonial power who live next to us.”
If West Papuans spoke up about what was happening, they were considered separatists, Mote said, regardless of whether they were journalists, intellectuals, public servants or even high-ranking Indonesian generals.
“When our students on the ground speak of justice, they’re beaten up, put in jail and [they – Indonesians] kill so many of them,” Mote said.
Mote is a former journalist and said, while he was working, he witnessed Indonesian forces openly fire at students who were peacefully demonstrating their rights.
“We are in a very dangerous situation right now. When our people try to defend their land, the Indonesian government ignores them and they just take the land without recognising we are landowners,” he said.
The ecocide of West Papua
The ecology in West Papua was being damaged by mining, deforestation, and oil and gas extraction. Mote said Indonesia wanted to “wipe them from the land and control their natural resources”.
He said he was trying to educate the world that defending West Papua meant defending the world, especially small islands in the Pacific.
West Papua is the western half of the island of New Guinea, bordering the independent nation of Papua New Guinea. New Guinea has the third-largest rainforest after the Amazon and Congo and is crucial for climate change mitigation as they sequester and store carbon.
Mote said the continued deforestation of New Guinea, which West Papuan leaders were trying to stop, would greatly impact the small island countries in the Pacific, which were among the most vulnerable to climate change.
Mote also said their customary council in West Papua had already considered the impacts of climate change on small island nations and, given West Papua’s abundance of land, they said by having sovereignty they would be able to both protect the land and support Pacific Islanders who needed to migrate from their home islands.
In 2021 West Papuan leaders pledged to make ecocide a serious crime and this week Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa submitted a court proposal to the International Criminal Court to recognise ecocide as a crime.
Support from local Indonesians
Mote said there were Indonesians who supported the indigenous rights movement for West Papuans. He said there were both NGOs and a Papuan Peace Network founded by West Papuan peace campaigner Neles Tebay.
“There is a movement growing among the academics and among the well-educated people who have read the realities, among those who are also victims of the capital investors, especially in Indonesia when they introduced the omnibus law.”
The omnibus law was passed in 2020 as part of the president’s goals to increase investment and industrialisation in Indonesia. The law was protested because of concerns it would be harmful for workers due to changes in working conditions, and the environment because it would allow for increased deforestation.
He said there was an “awakening” especially in the younger generations who were more open-minded and connected to the world, who could see it both as a humanitarian and an environmental issue.
The ‘transfer’ of West Papua to Indonesia
“The Dutch [traded] us like a cow,” Mote said.
The former Dutch colony was passed over to Indonesia in 1963 but ULMWP calls it an invasion.
From 1957, the Soviet Union had been supplying arms to Indonesia and, during that period, the Indonesian Communist Party had become the largest political party in the country.
The US engineered a meeting between both countries, which resulted in the New York Agreement, giving control of West Papua to the UN in 1962 and then Indonesia a year later.
The New York Agreement stipulated that the population of West Papua were entitled to an act of self-determination.
The ‘act of no choice’
This decolonisation agreement was titled the 1969 Act of Free Choice, which is referred to as “the act of no choice” by pro-independence activists.
Mote said they witnessed, “how the UN allowed Indonesia to cut us into pieces, and they didn’t say anything when Indonesia manipulated our right for self-determination.”
The manipulation Mote refers to is for the Act of Free Choice. Instead of a national referendum, the Indonesian military hand-picked 1,025 West Papuan “representatives” to vote on behalf of the 816,000 people. The representatives were allegedly threatened, bribed and some were held at gunpoint to ensure a unanimous vote.
Leaders of the West Papuan independence movement assert that this wasn’t a real opportunity to exercise self-determination as it was manipulated. However, it was accepted by the UN.
Pacific support at UN General Assembly
Mote has came to Aotearoa after the 53rd Pacific Island Leaders Forum meeting in Tonga and has come to discuss plans over the next five years. Mote hopes to gain support to take what he calls the “slow-motion genocide” of West Papua back to the UN General Assembly.
“In that meeting we formulated how we can help really push self-determination as the main issue in the Pacific Islands,” Mote said.
Mote said there was focus on self-determination of West Papua, Kanaky/New Caledonia and Tahiti. He also said the focus was on what he described as the current colonisation issue with capitalists and global powers having vested interests in the Pacific region.
The movement got it to the UN General Assembly in 2018, so Mote said it was achievable. In 2018 Pacific solidarity was shown as the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and the Republic of Vanuatu all spoke out in support of West Papua.
They affirmed the need for the matter to be returned to the United Nations, and the Solomon Islands voiced its concerns over human rights abuses and violations.
What needs to be done
He said in the next five years Pacific nations needed to firstly make the Indonesian government accountable for its actions in West Papua. He also said President Joko Widodo should be held accountable for his involvement.
Mote said New Zealand was the strongest Pacific nation that would be able to push for the human rights and environmental issues happening, especially as he alleged Australia always backed Indonesian policies.
He said he was looking to New Zealand to speak up about atrocities taking place in West Papua and was particularly looking for support from the Greens, Labour and Te Pāti Māori for political support.
The coalition government announced a plan of action on July 30 this year, which set a new goal of $6 billion in annual two-way trade with Indonesia by 2029.
“New Zealand is strongly committed to our partnership with Indonesia,” Foreign Affairs Minister Winston said then.
“There is much more we can and should be doing together.”
Pope Francis’ milestone tour from 2-13 September includes Papua New Guinea, the nation that has long hosted the largest number of refugees in the Asia-Pacific region, as well as Indonesia, the country from which those asylum seekers fled.
Nowadays, PNG is better known for its colourful dance troupes, rugby league players and World War II sites, but back in the early 1980s it was in the headlines for a different reason, the influx of thousands of Melanesian people fleeing Indonesian rule in the neighbouring province of West Papua, then known as Irian Jaya.
The great bulk of those refugees, estimated to number up to 10,000, are still in PNG today, spread out along the north-south border, living in camps that have become villages, fearful of returning to Indonesia where conflict between the military and local resistance continues to play out. Like the PNG population, they are almost universally Christian.
Jason Siwat, director of the refugee program for the Catholic Bishops Conference of PNG and the Solomon Islands, says, ‘The West Papuans have conflict with local landowners, so they can’t farm and consequently face food insecurity. They’re unable to pay school fees, and even suffer untreated snake bites when they move about to gather firewood or hunt for food.”
These people live far away and out of sight of the media. The latter condition also applies to dozens more West Papuans who have made it to PNG’s capital of Port Moresby where Siwat’s team has gone house to house, or more accurately shanty to shanty, documenting conditions and needs, including hygiene and nutrition shortcomings, and lack of educational and work opportunities.
They “live in one of the most unhygienic and destitute conditions that you can find anywhere in Oceania and the Pacific that host refugees”, the report for the Bishops reads.
The many privations included 21 families sharing one toilet and one tap, with people sleeping on cardboard. Foraging for recyclable cans and bottles in ditches or rubbish bins was a major earner – for AUD$2.00 per day. Many children did not attend school and most adults have only rudimentary education or skills.
The Pontiff has frequently voiced sympathy for refugee concerns, and before leaving on this trip he reaffirmed his call for safe migration pathways for people fleeing their own countries for fear of persecution, describing any refusal to harbour asylum seekers as a “grave sin”.
Saying, “Even at this moment people are crossing seas and deserts to reach a land where they can live in peace and security”, the Pope added, “migrants cannot be deterred from those deadly crossings through more restrictive laws, nor through the militarisation of borders, nor through rejections”.
He urged the expansion of “safe and legal avenues for migrants, by facilitating sanctuary for those fleeing wars, violence, persecution and many calamities; we will achieve it by fostering in every way a global governance of migration based on justice, fraternity and solidarity”.
However, it seems unlikely the pontifical party will check in on the West Papuans in Port Moresby, let alone those in the remote sites, although included on the itinerary is a stopover in the border town of Vanimo, near the site of the first refugee camp, gloomily called Blackwater.
The Pope’s first stop was Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, which now occupies an unusual place in the refugee galaxy. No longer a source of asylum seekers, Indonesia now hosts a good many people who have found their way to the country in the hope of transiting to Australia, whether by air or sea.
No sinner in the Pope’s eyes, then, Indonesia allows them to stay, rather than face mandatory return home, refoulement in UN-speak, living in cheap hotels as far as possible from the coastline where they might find people selling passages on un safe boats. They lead a sad existence, with minimal living costs paid by the UNHCR and, to an extent, by Australia, which maintains a watchful eye.
In Port Moresby, a sometimes-violent place, Pope Francis is also unlikely to encounter the 50 or so asylum seekers who were moved there from the Australian-run Manus Island detention camp in a still-secret agreement in 2021 between the then-Morrison government and its equally opaque PNG counterpart.
These people hail from a range of dangerous places, including Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Iran, and have now been in PNG for more than a decade, unable to work, with insecure housing, failing health, including severe psychological disorders, seeing little hope of proper resettlement and relying on financial support from church charity groups in Australia.
In a strong letter to the Australian Government, the PNG Bishops Conference said these people “are in PNG because of an Australian policy, and not PNG’s… This is an arrangement that must never be repeated anywhere in the world, let alone in the Pacific and PNG”.
The Australian Government admitted recently that the “Independent Management Arrangement” had been “confidentially negotiated” with PNG and that disclosing the dollar value of Australia’s support could compromise PNG’s ability to manage the residual caseload. Apparently, openness about the funding would have the potential to “cause significant damage to the Australia/Papua New Guinea bilateral relationship”.
The asylum seekers’ situation has prompted numerous representations to Canberra from groups, including the Refugee Council of Australia, Australian Catholic & Migrant Refugee Office, the Catholic Alliance for People Seeking Asylum and St Vincent de Paul Society.
The key demand is for them to be offered relocation to the mainland for medical care, proper status assessment and assistance to resettle, whether in Australia or in a safe and willing third country.
St Vincent de Paul Society is also calling for an adequate safety net for all asylum seekers in Australia and a fairer process for all affected by the unjust “fast track” process, along with the holding of a Royal Commission into immigration detention, both offshore and onshore. The ALP’s 2023 national conference endorsed the holding of a parliamentary inquiry into immigration detention, but no progress has been made.
The pressures experienced by asylum seekers in the bureaucratic limbo of long-term bridging visas were highlighted by the recent public suicide in Melbourne by 23-year-old Mano Yogalingam, a Tamil from Sri Lanka.
A new report on Sri Lanka by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has highlighted “concerning trends with potentially far-reaching impact on the enjoyment of fundamental rights and freedoms in the country”. Deaths in custody and the brutal torture of Sri Lankan Tamils in detention were among the practices described.
In response, the Refugee Council of Australia has written to the Minister for Home Affairs and Immigration, Tony Burke, urging a reassessment of the protection needs of those rejected through the “fast track” process, the largest cohort being Sri Lankans Tamils.
‘There is a shift in welfare costs and responsibilities from federal to state agencies and community-based organisations, at an estimated cost of between $80 million to $120 million per year. Charities are being left to fill the gaps and it is not sustainable,” St Vincent de Paul Society national president Mark Gaetani adds.
The cost of Australia’s offshore detention program has reached an astronomical $12.1 billion, with the PNG deal still clouded in secrecy. Nauru is again closed to outside scrutiny, with the formerly decommissioned facility now holding around 100 people.
Pope Francis will be home before Sunday, 29 September, the World Day of Migrants and Refugees, no doubt vitalised by his experiences in the countries neighbouring Australia, including Timor-Leste, once a major source of Catholic refugees due to the Indonesian occupation.
His earlier words will continue to echo: “God does not remain at a distance, no. He shares in the migrants’ drama, God is there with them, with the migrants. He suffers with them, with the migrants, he weeps and hopes with them.”
It must be hoped that the Pontiff’s plea for accepting asylum seekers as members of the global human family will be received warmly, not least by our own supposedly compassionate country.
Australia West Papua Association Adelaide 