quarterly bulletin june 2010 - peace brigades international

Indonesia Project

Quarterly Bulletin June 2010

Peace Brigades International

P 3 Obituary Emmanuel Goo

P 4 Introduction to the Jakarta -Papua dialogue

P 7 The Jakarta - Papua dialogue;an interview with Muridan Widjojofrom LIPI ( Lembaga IlmuPengetahuan Indonesia, theIndonesian Institute of Sciences)

P 10 The Jakarta - Papuadialogue; an interview with NelesTebay from STFT Fajar Timur(Philosophical and TheologicalCollege) Jayapura

P 13 The Jakarta - Papua dialogue; anarticle by Matius Murid from KomnasHAM Papua (Komisi Nasional HakAsasi Manusia Papua, NationalCommission for Human Rights Papua)

P16 The Jakarta - Papua dialogue; anarticle by Deacon John Djonga

P 20 The EU Guidelines for the safetyof Human Rights Defenders anIndonesian approach

P. 22 The implementation of the EUGuidelines for Human RightsDefenders an opportunity and achallenge

P 24 A former volunteer returns: aninterview with Gerrit Meyer

P 26 Staff profile: an interview withthe IP International Volunteer

Coordinator

The Jakarta - Papua dialogue and the implementation of the EU Guidelines for the safety of Human RightsDefenders

The focus of this second Quarterly Bulletin of the PBIIndonesia Project is on two separate initiatives that arebeing developed within Indonesia.

The preliminary phase of developing the necessarycapacities for a dialogue between the two provinces onthe island of Papua and the central Government ofIndonesia in Jakarta is well underway. This initiative isbeing supported, promoted and implemented by bothcivil society organisations and sectors of the Governmentof Indonesia. PBI client LB3BH (Lembaga Penelitian,Pengkajian dan Pengembangan Bantuan Hukum,Institute of Research, Analysis and Development forLegal Aid) has been involved in this process, hosting arecent public consultation that occurred in Merauke.

Meanwhile on the national level a strategy has alreadybeen created by the European Union delegation incooperation with EU member states for the monitoring ofHuman Rights Defenders and the human rights situationin Indonesia. This will be done through theimplementation of the EU Guidelines for the safety ofHuman Rights Defenders.

This publication gives a broad overview of these twoinitiatives, which have the potential to positively developa discourse for the improvement of human rights inIndonesia.

In recognition of the role that PBI has as a non-partisanorganisation, opinions, articles and interviews wereelicited from a diverse range of individuals closelyinvolved in both of these processes in an attempt to let

those involved express their views.

Content Editorial

Donors PBI Indonesia Project

Misereor (Germany)

Civil Peace Service, (Germany)

Welwerts (Germany)

ICCO (Netherlands)

Co

nte

nt a

nd

Ed

ito

ria

l

PBI IP June Quarterly Bulletin 2010


Ob

itu

ary

: E

mm

an

ue

l G

oo

, 1

97

6-2

01

0

Peace Brigades International Indonesia Project is deeply saddened to inform you thatEmmanuel Goo a long time friend and client of PBI in Indonesia died in hospital on Monday24 May 2010, he was 34 years old.

Emanuel Goo was most well known for his work as an independent journalist and author based inNabire, Papua. He wrote for the weekly SPP (Suara Perempuan Papua, Women’s Voice Papua) oneof the newspapers most critical of district and provincial politics, corrupt practices and illegalextraction of resources. He was also a member of the AJI (Alliansi Journalis Independen, Papua,Alliance of Independent Journalists, Papua). In 2009 he published a book on local indigenous peaceculture in Papua.

In addition to his work as a journalist, Emmanuel Goo was a strong believer in the development ofcivil society through social work. He was the founder of a human rights Non GovernmentalOrganisation (NGO), Elpama (Lembaga Pemberdayaan Masyrakat Papua, Institute for theempowerment of Papuan Society), which focused on using peace and legal education to resolvesocial issues such as land rights, human rights and civil rights.

As a result of his work Emanuel Goo became the subject of intimidation and surveillance by securityforces over the past five years. The threats and intimidation he received ranged from being directly‘advised’ not to investigate a case to increasing interest in his whereabouts and strange textmessages and phone calls. It was as a result of these threats to his personal safety that inSeptember 2008 Emmanuel Goo became a PBI client.

All of us whose lives and work have been influenced by Emmanuel Goo will remember a dedicatedhuman rights activist who had time to talk. In the last years of his life he worked prodigiously forthe causes that he believed in. He will be sorely missed.

1976-2010Emmanuel Goo

Journalist and Human

Rights Defender


Dialogue in

IndonesiaThe effectiveness of dialoguein conflict resolution as a multi-level mediation tool is largelydefined by the complexity ofthe issue that it attempts toresolve combined with thewillingness of the variousstakeholders to accede to amediated solution. In the post Suharto era therehave been many attempts touse multi-level dialogue withinIndonesia, often combinedwith offers of financial,legislative, political andadministrative reform. Thereferendum in what becameEast Timor in 1999 and thesigning of the Helsinki peaceaccords between Aceh andJakarta in 2005 are two of the

most documented examples.

In the two provinces of Papuaand West Papua, which arelocated on the Eastern most tipof Indonesia, there have beena number of attempts toresolve tensions both locally aswell as between the centralgovernment in Jakarta andPapua.

The Special Autonomylegislation, passed into law in2001 is one such example.This was the result of dialoguebetween government andacademics in both Jayapuraand Jakarta. It was not the firstattempt at ‘dialogue’ and waspreceded by FORERI (ForumRekonsiliasi Rakyat Irian,Forum for Reconciliation ofSociety in Irian), team 100 ofWest Papuan Communities

and the Second PapuaCongress of 2000.

Previous attempts at dialoguehave highlighted the manyobstacles and problemsassociated with dialogue. Forexample in relation to themost recent initiative, SpecialAutonomy this is partly theresult of often contradictorylegislation that is passed downfrom the national legislatureand executive to Papua’sprovinces. In many respectsSpecial Autonomy grantsPapua the freedom to pass itsown laws, budgets, andcustomary right. According toNeles Tebay, Perppu(Peraturan Pengganti Undang-undang, Regulation in Lieu ofLaw) No.1/2008 furtherundermined Autonomy bygiving the central government

The Jakarta - Papua DialogueIndonesian Parliament Building, Jakarta Satellite image of the Western half of the island of Papua

Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

In 2001 the government in Jakarta implemented a series of legislative and financial reformsaimed at increasing regional autonomy in Aceh. These reforms were unsuccessful and violencecontinued until the signing of the Helsinki agreement in 2005.

The government in Jakarta implemented similar reforms commonly known in its abbreviated formOtsus (Otonomi Khusus, Special Autonomy) for Papua that was implemented in 2002. Thesereforms have similarly been viewed as largely unsuccessful. For the full text see:http://www.papuaweb.org/goi/otsus/files/otsus-en.htmlThe West Papua conflict in Indonesia: actors, issues and approaches, Esther Heidbüchel

1

2

2

1


the sole power to alter sectionsof the Autonomy law .Furthermore , the process ofpemekaran (creating newadministrative districtsthrough partition of old ones)has created newadministrative districts andadded further levels ofbureaucracy to the twoprovinces through whichdevelopment money has to befunnelled.

Developing theJakarta - Papuadialogue

The last two years inPapua have seen twoimportant debates that,

while not new have at leastbecome revitalised. Theseissues are Special Autonomyand a renewed focus on theability of dialogue to resolveproblems. These debates havebeen occurring at theacademic and political leveland have resulted in someconcrete initiatives that maywell result in a renewed roundof dialogue between Jakartaand Papua.

Two key drivers in particularthat have played an essentialrole in promoting andconstructing a credible modelfor identifying and addressingPapuan grievances are LIPI(Lembaga Ilmu PengetahuanIndonesia, the IndonesianInstitute of Sciences), agovernment think tank andNeles Tebay, a Papuanacademic and cleric from STFTFajar Timur (Philosophical andTheological College). Theirmodels are explored in twobooks: the Papua Road Map(LIPI) and Dialogue Jakarta –Papua (Neles Tebay).

These two books are foundedupon the presumption that thepeople of Papua havesubstantial grievances thatprevious attempts atmediation have leftunaddressed. Both modelsbelieve it is necessary not topresuppose what theseproblems are, but rather seekdefinition of these grievancesthrough public consultationswith all levels of civil society.The initial aims of these publicconsultations are threefold: tolegitimise the process ofdialogue, to define the content

of a future dialogue and toidentify potential Papuan

representatives for a dialogue.

Problems toovercome

The geography of Papuaitself has proven one ofthe most difficult

obstacles to overcome in theinitial stages of developing aconsensus within Papua on theterms of dialogue. Papua’sunique geography has resultedin a region that is one of themost culturally andlinguistically diverse in thewhole of Indonesia.

The impacts of internalmigration patterns withinIndonesia on Papua furthercomplicate geographicallyborn cultural complexities withthose of ethnicity. Comprisingan estimated 42% of thepopulation of the Western halfof the Papuan island, trans-migrants have altered thesocial, economic, religious andpolitical face of Papua. What ismore, Indonesian migrants toPapua are predominantlybased in urban areas.

Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

The Minister of Home Affairs recently challenged the application of the Otsus regulation whichstates that every Bupati, Wakil bupati, Walikota, wakil walikota (Governor, Deputy Governor,Mayor, Deputy Mayor) in Papua has to be an indigenous Papuan. This regulation is seen asdiscriminative by the Minister but is widely supported by the Papuan community. Attempts tochange the regulation led to a large demonstration in the city of Jayapura in opposition to theproposal. (Cenderawasih Pos May 18th 2010)To access Papua, especially the highlands air, transport is often the only feasible way. Accessing

the coastal regions is still possible by boat though more time consuming. This has resulted in twoloose groupings being formed of ‘highland’ and ‘coastal’ Papuans with often conflicting problemsand political views.New Guinea is perhaps the most linguistically diverse region in the world, Guns Germs and Steel,

Jared DiamondDialogue Jakarta – Papua, Neles TebayPlans to develop a 1.6 million hectare Integrated Food and Energy Estate in Merauke with an

expected population increase from 175,000 to approximately 800,000 people will see acontinuation of this trend.This urban – rural divide is important for not only are state services and infrastructure generally

of a higher quality in urban locations but human rights abuses occuring disproportionally inremote areas of Papua.

3

4

5

6

7

3

4

5

6

7

8

8


Creating a unified discourse forsuch a politically and sociallyfragmented society isextremely complex. Whilethere are a number of issuessuch as the lack of stateservices that can be seen asuniversal problems effectingthe population of the region,other factors are more divisive.Given the high levels ofmilitarisation and socialdiscord, finding an agreementbetween Jakarta and Papuaupon the content for dialoguewill be extremely difficult.

It is some of the divisiveissues, such as a referendumfor the two provinces of Papuafor example, that combinecultural and politicalgrievances which may split notonly the indigenous andmigrant population of Papua,but the willingness of Jakartato contemplate any form ofdialogue. Furthermore supportfrom Jakarta for this initiativeis far from guaranteed. Themodel for dialogue that hasbeen proposed by both LIPIand Neles Tebay does not seekto restrict the issues to be

discussed within the dialogue.As such, the conceptualframework and content of thedialogue remains largelyabstract. Few in the Jakartapolitical elite however can beexpected to openly endorse adialogue while its contentremains undefined, especiallygiven the differing historicalperspectives between Jakartaand Papua on how the twoprovinces were integrated intoIndonesia.

The wayforward

At the time of writing,the pre-dialogueconsultations of the

Papua Peace Network havealmost been completed. Aspreviously stated, one of themain outputs of these publicconsultations should be thatPapuans reach a commonunderstanding of whatdialogue with Jakarta meansfor the population of the twoprovinces.

As can be seen from some ofthe following articles and

interviews, there is still muchuncertainty regarding whenthe proposed dialoguebetween the two sides shouldstart. With no guarantee ofsupport from Jakarta and asyet no agreement withinPapua on who should be theelected representatives of thetwo provinces, suchuncertainty is understandable.

Ultimately what may welldefine the success or failure ofthe Jakarta – Papua dialogue iswhat legacy President SusiloBambang Yudhoyono wishesto leave behind. During his firstterm in office with Joseph Kallaas his Vice President, SusiloBambang Yudhoyonosuccessfully presided over theHelsinki peace accords whichfinally resulted in what appearsto be a lasting peace for Aceh.Now in his second term he hasthe opportunity to endorse adialogue that could havesimilar benefits for the twoprovinces on the island ofPapua. The coming monthsshould do much to clarify ifsuch support will beforthcoming.

Millennium Development Goals Progress Report Indonesia (2007), UNDP..There are plans being considered for the creation of a new Kodam (Komando Daerah Militer,Regional Military Command) for the province of West Papua which would result in an increase inmilitary personnel deployed to the province.http://www.tempointeraktif.com/hg/nusa/2010/01/18/brk,20100118-219755,id.htmlA recent World Bank project called Violent Conflict in Indonesia Study collected data from local

and national newspapers in an attempt to track violence in various forms throughout Indonesia.The study identified the province of Papua as having the highest rates of violence in Indonesia.The government view is that conflict with the Dutch over the decolonisation of Papua lasted until

the Act of Free Choice in 1969 and was the last chapter in Indonesia’s struggle againstcolonialism. http://muridan-papua.blogspot.com/

9

10

11

9

10

11

12

12

Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; a

LIP

I p

ers

pe

ctive

One of the keyindividuals involved inthe development of a

dialogue is Muridan S. Widjojoa middle ranking civil servantof Javanese descent workingfor LIPI (Lembaga IlmuPengetahuan Indonesia, theIndonesian Institute ofSciences). Together with NelesTebay a Papuan academiccleric he is the face of thePapua Peace Network(Jaringan Damai Papua), aloose association of individualssupportive of the developmentof a coherent strategy for adialogue between Jakarta andPapua.

PBI volunteers Michael Moriand Nico Prins interviewedMuridan to gain his views onhow the Jakarta – Papuadialogue is progressing andwhat he sees for the future ofthis initiative. Muridan quicklygot into the topic, animatedlyexplaining the issue that LIPI ishelping to develop.

To start with Muridanexplained the outline for adialogue as LIPI envisions it.The process is comprised ofthree key preliminary stages:

1. Advocate and promotedialogue as a viable tool forconflict resolution at the levelof central government,especially focusing upon thePresidential and Ministeriallevels.

2. Encourage the elites and theleaders of Papua to prepare fordialogue with Jakarta.

3. Design a public consultationprogram that ensures alegitimate dialogue wherePapuan leaders, grass rootorganisations and members ofthe general public can inputand support the process ofdeveloping a dialogue.

Muridan explained how byusing its unique position as agovernment institution andthink tank LIPI can promotethe idea of a Jakarta – Papuadialogue both in Jakarta and inPapua. With institutionalsupport LIPI, can safely fosterthe seeds of a dialogue withGovernment ministries and

the Indonesian Parliamentwithout being stigmatised as abody working for Papuanindependence.

Fostering

dialogue in

Jakarta

The process of promotinga dialogue with centralgovernment bodies will

be complex. LIPI has to helpdevelop both institutionalisedas well as direct ministerialsupport from IndonesianGovernment Departments.Ultimately if the endeavor is toreally succeed full presidentialsupport will be necessary.Though such support is not yet

Muridan S. Widjojo,a LIPI perspective

Muridan S. Widjojo


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; a

LIP

I p

ers

pe

ctive

forthcoming significant inroadshave been made.

One of the main proponents ofa Jakarta - Papua dialogue,and an institution thatcontinues to be supportive, isthe Office of the VicePresident. Ex-Vice PresidentMuhammed Jusuf Kalla, widelyknown for his involvement inthe Aceh peace process, wasan early convert. Thoughknown more as anadministrative reformer,support for the endeavourfrom the Vice Presidents’ Officehas continued under thetutelage of Boediono. A reasonfor this may not be continuedsupport from Boediono butrather that a number ofdeputies have remained inoffice following the presidentialelections.

On the ministerial levelindividuals such as the Ministerof Transport andCommunication FreddyNumberi and the Ex Minister ofDefence Juwono Sudarsonohave recognised theimportance of dialogue. TheMinister for Transport andCommunication activelylobbied President SusiloBambang Yudhoyono writinghim a personal letter statingthe need for a dignifiedprocess of dialogue for thepeople of Papua.

On the governmental levelmany members ofCommission One of theIndonesian Parliament, if notopenly supportive of dialogue,are open to the concept.Support from members ofCommission One may becomea key factor in developing thisprocess as the IndonesianParliament is mandated to

determine issues relating toNational Unity. A topic that willfurther be explored later in thisdocument.

Support has also been offeredfrom bodies such as theNational Resilience Council, athink tank composedpredominantly of former highranking Military and Policeofficials. This is a very positivedevelopment considering theconservative stance oftentaken by the Indonesian Armyand security sector.

While some quietly backdialogue, no governmentdepartment or prominentpolitician has yet publiclyendorsed the process. Withthe issue of a referendum andinternational mediation beingdiscussed in the Papuanconsultations, an endorsementfor dialogue at this stage couldbe tantamount to politicalsuicide. Though Muridan didnot mention it a parallel couldbe drawn to the abrupt end ofBacharrudin Jusuf Habibie’spolitical career following hisendorsement of a referendumin East Timor.

It is this issue of sovereigntywith its nationalistic overtonesthat may make or break theinitiative for dialogue. Both theHome Office and the variousstate intelligence agencies arestrongly opposed to the ideafor these very reasons. Thepolicies of the Ministry ofForeign Affairs in restrictinginternational access to Papuaseem to be reflective of thesefears. Furthermore a dialoguethat desires a review of recentPapuan history such as the1969 act of Free Choice is averitable Pandora’s box for thepolitical elite both in Jakarta

and Papua.

It is for this reason ofsovereignty combined withnationalism that LIPI has beenfocusing on these issues whendiscussing dialogue in Jakarta.There is a need to reduce thefears of central governmentinstitutions. In meetings withthe Ministry for Foreign Affairsand BIN (Badan IntelijenNegara, State IntelligenceAgency), LIPI has repeated itsposition that dialogue shouldbe an Indonesian initiative.Muridan explained at lengthhow Indonesian control overthe process is vital for ensuringsupport. “This is fundamentallya nationalistic issue and itneeds to be resolved within theIndonesian political space.” Yetthe LIPI facilitators have towalk a fine line reconciling thediffering demands of thecentral government with thoseof Indonesia’s two easternmost provinces.

There are also cases of briberyand co-option. Muridanrecently received a report thatindividuals had attempted tobribe leaders of the Papuancommunity to gain theirsupport for dialogue in adifferent format. These offerswere refused, and yet theyhighlight the many obstaclesthat a dialogue will have toovercome if it is to besuccessful.

Developingdialogue withinPapua

Papua Peace Network(PPN) in which LIPIcollaborates with

Papuan facilitators underFather Neles Tebay leadership


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; a

LIP

I p

ers

pe

ctive

faces the complex task offostering the development of acognisant body that canaccurately represent Papua ina dialogue with Jakarta. Thecomplexity of this task reflectsthe difficulty of creating aunified voice for ‘Papuanaspirations’, a phrase thatglosses over the nearimpossible task of uniting aPapuan society divided byreligion, culture, language andethnicity.

The public consultations havejoint aims which are not onlydeveloping a body to representPapua but also to develop anunderstanding of what adialogue can offer the peopleof Papua. In cooperation withlocal civil society groups, LIPIis hosting public consultationsfor indigenous Papuansthroughout the two provinces.Consultations will also occurwith members of the Papuanelite followed by a parallel setof consultations for theimmigrant population residingin Papua.

Like a mantra Muridanemphasised the importance oflegitimacy in the eyes ofPapuans for theseconsultations. “If this processisn’t seen to be legitimate thenit will fail before it starts”. Theprocess needs to betransparent at both the localand provincial level if there isany hope of succeedingnationally.

PPN’s aim is that the series ofpublic hearings will raiseawareness within the region ofthe differences in opinion onwhat should be underdiscussion in a future dialoguebetween Jakarta and Papua.This awareness is needed to

incrementally build realisticexpectations of dialogue, andwill help in the formulation of arealistic content for dialoguethat is representative ofPapua’s political, cultural andethnic diversity.

There are already signs thatthis approach is succeeding inPapua. Muridan gave theexample of how KNPB (KomiteNasional Papua Barat, WestPapua National Committee),until recently a Papuanopponent of PPN has becomesupportive of the role that theinstitute is playing inpromoting dialogue. Heexplained how he had beentold that there is a textmessage circulating in Papua(from KNPB) that says “weshould respect each other andnot fight even if we havedifferences in opinion. Ourobjective is the same”.

Looking to the

future

By the end of 2010 PPNplans to end theprocess of consultations

within Indonesia but if thereare demands from Papua toextend the consultations, PPNfacilitators would comply withthem. Meanwhile Muridanbelieves that it will benecessary to have developed acoherent content for thedialogue by this stage. “Ifthere is no unity from Papuansthen there are some in Jakartawho question why Papuadeserves to have a dialogue”.In 2011 PPN facilitators will stillbe available for localconsultations on demand,such as occurred recently inYogyakarta with members ofthe Papuan student in

Indonesia.

Following the publicconsultations in Indonesia PPNwants to host consultationswith the global PapuanDiaspora. There are manyprominent Papuan politicalfigures living in exile such asBenny Wenda, whose opinionsMuridan believes need to beincluded before initiating adialogue. PPN is in the earlystages of developing proposalsfor such consultations and it ishere that Muridan sees thepotential for the involvementof an international third party,preferably a NonGovernmental Organisation(NGO), both in organising andhosting such an event.

PPN also plans to launch alarge Indonesia wide publiccampaign in support of theJakarta – Papua dialogue.They aim to get the backing ofprominent popular figuressuch as musicians andtelevision celebrities. It isthrough such a program thatovert public support couldresult in more open politicalsupport.

At the end of it all, Muridanremains optimistic butpragmatic. “I am amazed athow far we have gone in twoyears”, but he is the first toacknowledge the manyhurdles yet to be faced.

By Nico Prins

PBI Volunteer

PBI IPJune Quarterly Bulletin 2010

Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; N

ele

s T

eb

ay,

Pa

pu

a P

ea

ce

Ne

two

rk

Father Neles, how did youbecome involved in thepreparation of the dialoguetogether with Muridan?

I started writing articles on thedialogue and on non-violencein 2002/2003. Many of themwere published in national andlocal newspapers such as theJakarta Post or Bintang Papua.The idea for a Jakarta - Papuadialogue is not a new one and Iknew that LIPI supported theidea of a dialogue. Muridanand I have known each other

for quite a while and our closepersonal relationshipcombined with a commoninterest in the dialogue led tous working together on thisinitiative. Following thepublication of LIPI’s PapuaRoad Map, the work on adialogue became moreconcrete.

What is the current state ofthe preparations for publicconsultations in Papua?

The public consultations, as

part of the of the pre-dialoguephase, are completed. Theseconsultations were organisedas a result of a planningmeeting that was held in thebeginning of January, 2010.The goal was to bring Papuanstakeholders and communitiestogether, to get an idea of theirunderstanding of dialogue andcreate unity. Nine consultationsessions in different regencieshave been held since then andwe are ready to have more ifthis is requested. On the20th/21st of May we will startthe evaluation of thesesessions and assess whatsteps will be taken during thenext six months.

Do you perceive Otsus(Otonomi Khusus, SpecialAutonomy) to havesucceeded? If not how canthe Jakarta – Papuadialogue rectify thesegrievances?

During the public consultationsessions Otsus was notdiscussed, but only thedialogue itself. The failure ofOtsus is one of the reasonswhy a dialogue is needed andit could be one of the issues

An Interview with Neles Tebay

Father Dr. Neles Tebay, studied Theology at Fajar Timur in Abepura, Papua, and, afterhis ordination in 1992, obtained a Masters Degree in Manila and a Ph.D. at the UrbaniaUniversity of Rome. He worked at the Diocesan Office of Jayapura for Justitia et Paxwhere he has published a large number of articles and brochures. He regularly writesfor local and national Indonesian newspapers and has published the books Papua, itsproblems and possibilities for a peaceful solution in September 2008 and DialogueJakarta-Papua, A Papuan perspective in March 2009. Together with Muridan from LIPI(Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia, Indonesian Institute of Sciences) he is theco-founder of the Papua Peace Network which strives to facilitate peace talks betweenJakarta and Papua.

PBI Volunteer Hallina Schmidt interviewing Neles Tebay, Jayapura May 2010


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; N

ele

s T

eb

ay,

Pa

pu

a P

ea

ce

Ne

two

rk

that will be discussed duringthe dialogue. However, theagenda is not yet set; this willbe done during the initialmeetings when the two partiesfinally come together. This isalso the case for any otherissue that is under discussionfor incorporation into thedialogue: anything the twoparties accept as valid fordiscussion can be put on theagenda.

Speaking of other topicsand considering pasthuman rights violations inPapua, how will a dialoguewithout reconciliation bepossible?

One precondition will be thatboth parties, as well as thewider Papuan society, are verywell prepared. This is what weare trying to achieve duringthe pre-dialogue phase.Reconciliation can be one ofthe topics that will bediscussed during the dialogue,and maybe an agreement onreconciliation can be foundthrough dialogue.

What are the majorchallenges of the Jakarta –Papua dialogue?

Mistrust from both sides is oneof the major challenges. ThePapuan people have lost trustin the Indonesian government.At the same time, theIndonesian government issuspicious towards theaspirations of Papuans. Theseperceptions, combined withdiffering hopes andexpectations for the dialogue,present a challenge to theorganisation of a Jakarta-Papua dialogue. The Papuanpeople are hoping forindependence, whereas theIndonesian government wantsto sustain the unity of thenation as one country. The twosides each have their‘positions’ which have to berespected and acknowledged.The ‘positions’ [of the twosides] are not underdiscussion, but there are manysmall issues related to thesetwo positions that can and willbe discussed during the

dialogue. The demand of thePapuan people forindependence will not bediscussed, but the reasonswhy they want independenceshould be. The question is notabout independence, but whydo Papuan people wantindependence.

Papua has a highly diversepopulation with a widerange of aspirations. Whatsteps have been taken toensure the dialogue willactually represent thewishes of all the Papuanpeople?

Papua has about 250 differentethnic groups, many differentreligious groups andpersuasions. Furthermore,OPM (Organisasi PapuaMerdeka, the Organisation forPapuan Independence) is notunited but has many differentfactions. Papua is a veryfragmented region and that iswhy we face the challenge offinding people who canrepresent all Papuan people inthe dialogue. We have already


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; N

ele

s T

eb

ay,

Pa

pu

a P

ea

ce

Ne

two

rkdiscussed this during thepublic consultation sessionsand made people aware that itis necessary that we can showthe world that we are ready forthe dialogue and that we canagree on representatives.

Why do you believe thatthe Jakarta - Papuadialogue is important forPapuans?

The dialogue is very importantfor the people of Papuabecause it will create space todiscuss how to develop publicservices in order to improvethe relationship between thecentral government and thepeople of the two provinces ofPapua.

The dialogue is an opportunityto improve development inPapua and bring togethervarious stakeholders toovercome obstacles. Thedialogue is a means for thePapuan people together withthe Indonesian government toidentify what hinders thedevelopment process andimprovement of the livingconditions in Papua and findalternative solutions.

In your opinion, howstrong is support fordialogue within Papua?

The further the processdevelops, the greater thesupport. Already, during thepublic consultation sessions,we were able to clarify andexplain a lot to the Papuanpeople. A better understandingof the process and its aims willcontribute to a greater level ofsupport among Papuanpeople. There are still partieswho do not support dialogue,and whose understanding is

still different, so it is alsoimportant to hear andunderstand their opinions.There are always opponentsand supporters, but in general,support is strong and it is vitalthat people everywhere talkabout the dialogue. It isimportant that all opinions arediscussed.

As a Papuan yourself whatwould you like to seediscussed in a dialoguebetween Jakarta andPapua?

The two parties involved in thedialogue will decide later whatwill be discussed. I am gladthat the dialogue will happenand that I can contribute to itand work hard for it.

Can you clarify the role ofPapuan people livingabroad, the diaspora?

Everybody has to be involvedand everyone’s opinion has tobe heard. No matter if Papuansliving abroad support oroppose the dialogue, theyhave to be consulted and theyhave to be able to expresstheir opinion, even if they arecritics. If they have advice orworries, these have to betaken into account. Most of thePapuans living abroad do sobecause of the conflict, thusthey are affected by theconflict and are still a part ofPapua.

How do you see the role ofthe internationalcommunity? Is there anypossibility for theirinvolvement in thedialogue?

The international communitycan support the dialogue in

many different ways. Their rolewill change according to thedifferent stages of thedialogue. At the moment, theinternational community isneeded to show support andmaintain interest in thedialogue. In this way, they canhelp to make sure the processcontinues to move forward.Later, if the parties findagreement, they will have toimplement what they haveagreed upon. As such, the roleof the international communitymight change. It has yet to bedecided by the two parties ifthe international communitycan act as a mediator once thedialogue has started. Any suchinvolvement will have to be inaccordance with the needs ofthe parties.

How will you continue tobe involved in thedevelopment of the Jakarta- Papua dialogue? Is therea clear timeline already?

The dialogue is divided intothree phases, the pre-dialogue, the dialogue itselfand the post-dialogue. At themoment we are still in the pre-dialogue phase and arepreparing the dialogue itself.The timeline is not yet clear. Iwill be involved in thepreparations untilrepresentatives are electedand until the Papuan society isready. The better we preparethe people now, the better thedialogue will be later.

By Hallina Schmidt

PBI Volunteer

Indonesia Project


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; K

om

na

s H

AM

Pa

pu

a p

ers

pe

ctive

The process of fostering adialogue betweenJakarta and Papua has

already started. The articlebelow which has been writtenby Matius Murib from KomnasHAM Papua (Komisi NasionalHak Asasi Manusia Papua,National Commission forHuman Rights Papua) gives anoverview of developments thathave occurred in the processof developing a dialoguebetween Jakarta and Papuafrom three perspectives. Oneof these perspectives relates toKomnas HAM and its role asan institution. It givesinformation regardingactivities Komnas HAM isinvolved in/ has implementedat both the central (Jakarta)and regional (Papua) level.The article also elaboratesupon the potential role thatJoseph Kalla could play in aJakarta – Papua dialogue. Thefinal piece in the article givessome personal observationsand views from Matius Murib.

As a potential mediatorin the process JusufKalla had planned to

meet Papuan leaders who arepromoting the initiative fordialogue. With the exception ofNeles Tebay none of those

In 2009 Peace BrigadesInternational Indonesiasigned a Memorandum ofUnderstanding withKomnas HAM Papua.

As part of its mandate topromote dialogue betweendifferent sections of societyand in an effort to help inthe development of adialogue the IndonesiaProject will be sendingMatius Murid, the author ofthis article on a speakingtour to Europe.

Matius Murib

Komnas HAM meetsKalla

In the meeting KomnasHAM was asked to takeon the role of negotiator,and find answers to thefollowing 5 questions:

1. How many firearmsare in the possession ofOPM?2. Can they hold ameeting with the leaderof OPM?3. Does OPM have aunified opinion andposition concerning thedialogue?4. Identify if all nativePapuans have a sharedview concerning thecontent of a futuredialogue.5. Can a dialogue beimplemented withoutdiscussing the option ofPapuan independencefrom Indonesia?

A possiblemediator?

Komnas HAMPapua

An interview with

Matius Murib


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

Dia

log

ue

; K

om

na

s H

AM

Pa

pu

a p

ers

pe

ctive

asked to attend had anyobjections to joining themeeting.

When asked by the KomnasHAM team to attend themeeting with Kalla on Feb. 19,2010, Father Neles Tebaystressed, that Kalla had to firstbe officially appointed byPresident Susilo BambangYudhoyono before he wouldsee him since Kalla no longerheld an official position withthe Government of Indonesia.

Developing astrategy

The dialogue betweenJakarta and Papua hasentered the first phase,

marked by three meetingsbetween Komnas HAM andJusuf Kalla. These meetingswere convened to ask for his

advice on developing adialogue and to see if he waswilling to participate as amediator in the proposeddialogue because of hisprevious experiences in Aceh.

As a starting point and insupport the Jakarta – Papuadialogue, the SecretaryGeneral of Komnas HAMissued a decree for KomnasHAM commissioners to workwith a special team focusingupon helping to develop thenecessary tools and identifyactors to make any futuredialogue between Jakarta andPapua viable.

In order for this to be effectiveit will be necessary to establishif the more radical, extremeand militant sectors of OPMhold the same perspective asthe more moderate sectors ofthe organisation.

Several activities that [KomnasHAM perceives] are aprerequisite for dialogue havealready been undertaken.

A large part of the process fordeveloping the ground workfor dialogue in Papua is beingimplemented by a team[which is] undertaking publicconsultations in Wamena,Timika, Manokwari, Biak,Paniai, etc.

By doing this it is hoped that aconsensed view from all of thedifferent elements involved indialogue will be reached inPapua so that Papuans will beprepared once the time of theactual dialogue arrives.

Jusuf Kalla’s Hopes

1. The history of Papua[and its integration in theRepublic of Indonesiafollowing the 1969 act offree choice] is consistentwith its future [in theRepublic]2. Reparations to Papuansociety of 3-6 trillionrupiah. 3. An MOU, revising theSpecial Autonomylegislation to be made aPapuan Government Law4. The start of a formalprocess of dialogue withina period of six months.

Pre-requisites forthe implementationof a successfuldialogue asperceived byKomnas HAM

1. D e v e l o p i n gsupport and reaching acommon understandingof what dialogue wouldentail for the centralgovernment in Jakarta.2. D e v e l o p i n gsupport and reaching acommon understandingof dialogue for allmembers of thepopulation of the twoprovinces of Papua.3. [Informal dialoguebetween] Jakarta andPapua4. [Informal dialoguebetween] Papua andJakarta

How Komnas HAMproposes to aid thedevelopment of afuture dialogue

1. Creating a Geo-demographic map of thepopulation of the twoprovinces on the island ofPapua.2. A mapping of Papuanstrategic groups (PapuaCustomary Council,religious groups, studentgroups, Papua People’sAssembly, womenorganisations, etc.)3. Identifying the positionof the various differentfactions of OPM in relationto the idea of dialogue.


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

dia

log

ue

; K

om

na

s H

AM

Pa

pu

a p

ers

pe

ctive

Additionally, a process of publicconsultations has been startedabroad with the Papuandiaspora community to ellicittheir views on dialogue, suchas a meeting in Singaporeseveral months earlier. It isthrough developing suchsystems that Komnas HAMcan help to ensure that thedialogue will be honest, openand democratic. Not a processthat is under the shadow ofmilitary and civil forces.

It is within this context thatKomnas HAM acting as amediator has decided toactively monitor the process ofdialogue until the initiation offormal discussions.

The position ofMatius Murib

Ifear that the Jakarta –Papua dialogue, if notattended by the

international community withan interest in human rights,

will only become a sharingforum for the victims [ofviolence and exploitation]. Theactors most responsible formany of the problems that thepeople of Papua have will notbe held accountable. Without aresponsible resolution whichseeks to address the rootcauses of violence and socialconflict then there is little hopeof real progress.

An example of a cause of socialconflict in Papua is theoperations of extractiveindustries. In the past therehave been allegations that notonly have local land rights notbeen respected, but thatindigenous lands have beenexpropriated. These feelings ofinjustice have resulted insignificant social tensions. Itcould be assumed that if localland rights are respected andcompanies operate in a sociallyresponsible manner this hasthe potential to significantlyreduce local tensions. Thebenefits of such operating

practices are significant. Thishas the potential to reducesocial tensions in Papua whichby default results in a morestable and secure environmentfor businesses to operate in.Such initiatives as these wouldnot only be beneficial forPapua, but also for Indonesiaas a whole.

Another of the pressing issuesthat the dialogue needs toconsider addressing relates toiconography, specifically thefuture of the use of theMorning Star and theIndonesian flags in the twoprovinces.

I hope that from the dialogue,we will discover the true desireof the Papuans, their politicalstance, whether they still wantto be integrated withIndonesia or standindependently as a freecountry.

Jakarta Papua

Content

3rd PartyMediator

Content

Public Consultations

Model of the Jakarta - Papua

Dialogue

Dialogue

The development ofPapuan society has notbeen smooth. There are

too many unsolved socialproblems that have yet to beresolved, and these areincreasing and piling up. Itfeels like the water is risingaround the people’s neck,nearly causing them to drownin the vast ocean.

In the last presidential electionin 2009, almost 90 percent ofthe Papuans voted for Susilo

Bambang Yudhoyono. Withsuch overwhelming supportthe Papuans sent a clearmessage to the President. ThePapuans are expecting aleader that will help developPapua since the Papuans aretruly in dire need ofimprovements in the provisionof services, justice, lawenforcement and security fortheir ancestral land.

Access to justice and improvedlaw enforcement is more than

ever a priority because of theculture of impunity in Papua.Human rights violations areinflicted by the stateapparatus, government, army,police, traders, immigrants,and many others. There arerepeated human rightsviolations in every part ofPapua without a fair resolutionthat benefits the victims.

Furthermore immigrationtrends are resulting insignificant changes in thepopulation of Papua, soon themajority of the population willbe non indigenous. This willresult in increasedmarginalisation for the nativepeople. This sense ofmarginalisation is increasedfurther when combined withdiscrimination that affects allaspects of life among thepeoples of Papua.

In Papua changes in culturalland ownership can and hascoincided with intimidation andterror. The Papuans once had afood supply that was as largeas their forests, but it’s gone

Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

dia

log

ue

; D

ea

co

n P

asto

r Jo

hn

Djo

ng

a

Dialogue: an early process to mend thewounds of the Papuans

Deacon Pastor John Djonga is a former PBI client. He works as a Catholic priest in Waris

District, Keerom Regency. Originally from Flores, Pastor John has lived in Papua for

twenty-two years. As a priest, Pastor John provided pastoral care to the communities in the

Waris District and following his recent promotion to Deacon, he acts as coordinator for the

five parishes in the Keerom Regency.

Pastor John has attracted a great deal of attention locally, nationally and internationally as

a human rights activist. Lately in December 2009 he even received the prestigious Yap

Thiam Hien Award for his dedication to upholding human rights. He describes himself as

working for the local community and indigenous Papuans in Waris and Keerom where no

human rights NGOs or INGOs have a consistent presence.

Deacon John Djonga



now since the forests are beingtransformed into oil palmplantations and is beingaffected by illegal settlements.As a result of these trendsforest degradation anddestruction continues andbecause of the culture ofimpunity the ones who areresponsible are rarely heldaccountable. All of thesechanges are making thepeoples of Papua moredependent on the poorpeople’s rice (locally known asraskin).

All the while the problems ofunderdevelopment in Papuaremain largely unaddressed.Development projects thathave been implemented areoften undertaken sporadicallyand largely to the benefit ofcertain parties. If we focus onpoverty, education and healthissues in Papua, we canunderstand that mostresolutions result in projects.However as developmentprojects are disproportionallyfocused upon urban areas andnot remote rural regionsimmigrants reap the benefit.

The alignment of the nativePapua peoples based on thespecial autonomy law is notseriously implemented. Thematernal and infant mortalitydeath rate is increasing incities and isolated villagesacross Papua. Low nutrition isspreading evenly in a land richwith gold, silver, oil, gas, etc.These rich natural resourcesdon’t create prosperity for thepeoples of Papua. They arebecoming yet poorer, sufferingand becoming even morepowerless. The government—in this case, it’s theCoordinating Minister ofPeople’s Welfare, Coordinating

Minister of Politics, Law andSecurity—must find anappropriate new approachfast. If this is not found theproblems of stereotyping willonly be reinforced withPapuans being stigmatised asbeing stupid, lazy and oftendrunk while the peoples ofPapua argue that the centralgovernment only wants totake the natural resources butneglects the human resources.There is still much room foroptimism, and repeated effortshave been made by thePapuans (Governor/regent,legislative level, Non-Government Organisations(NGO), religious, customaryand youth groups) and peoplein Jakarta for change.

It seems that many in Jakartasee, hear and speak no evil. Byrefusing to deal with the issuesin Papua and recognising thecomplexity and theseriousness of the issues theyare only entrenchingresentment and causing moreproblems for the future. Thepeoples of Papua understandthat the social defect andhuman rights issueshappening on their land haveyet to be resolved. Forexample when the specialautonomy was beingdiscussed and developedhuman rights issues in Papuawere escalating. This wascombined with decreases inlife expectancy and generalwelfare standards for thepeople in Papua since the costof food, beverages andservices were increasing.

In a prayer by one of the chiefsof the Baliem tribe in Wamenaduring the inauguration of fournew members of the Papuacustomary council on January

24th, 2010, he said, “DearGod, You know that yourchildren, the people of Papua,have been growing miserably.We’re desolate, we suffer,we’re hungry, we’re ill andfinally death takes us away.One by one, we’re dyingbecause of bullets, diseases,alcohol and our own people.Our lands have been taken bystrangers. Gold, gas, silver,and oil have been drained bythe greedy immigrants andbusinessmen. Dear God, yousee us, don’t you? We are thePapuans whom you’vecreated. We are now in tearsbecause we’re hungry, sickand we can’t send our childrento school. Yet, our childrenhave made themselvesregents and Members ofParliament (MP) have takenthe Otsus (special autonomy)money for themselves. Theydon’t want to acknowledge us;they’re hiding behind theirtinted glass. It’s difficult for usto move forward and it’s evenharder to step back. ThePapuan high-ranking officialshave shut their doors andhearts so we can’t talk withthem anymore. God, it’spainful to see our children’sbehaviour, children that wereborn from us! Oh God, whenwill your children’s difficultiesin Papua be resolved? Weworked on the land, plantedour yams, yet nothing cameout of it. We took care of ourpigs but it gave us nothing,making us spiritless. Godplease open heaven’s door andcome help us, the people ofPapua. Amen.”

This prayer reveals severalaspects of the condition ofPapuan society. The prayerrepresenting more or less5,000 customary people was a

Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

dia

log

ue

; D

ea

co

n P

asto

r Jo

hn

Djo

ng

a


Indonesian government.

4. The issue of politicalviolence, mainly used as a toolby the state apparatus which isallegedly violating humanrights.

This is not an extensive list ofthe problems that are faced.For there are also other issueslike the expropriation of land,the impacts of HIV/AIDS,alcohol abuse, rapiddeforestation and the absenceof protection for local Papuansas written in Otsus No.21/2001.

Another disturbing issue forthe Papuans is the high level ofmilitarisation of the province.There are too manyIndonesian military andintelligence personnel on theground. The central (Jakarta)government treats Papua as ifthe region is extremelypolitically unstable. Thissituation has been caused byincorrect reporting ofintelligence according toformer head of BIN GeneralHendro Priyono in an interviewwith Metro TV. I very muchagree with the General whostated that there are a largenumber of intelligencepersonnel in the field who werewalking around drunk, whoare involved in businessamong other things.Intelligence operations inPapua are necessary but theymust be done properly and thegovernment should not sendpersonnel that are ignorant ofthe local cultures.

What the government hasdone in the past nine yearsregarding the implementationof special autonomy has notyet had a major impact upon

the majority of the local peoplein Papua. The implementationof Otsus has only highlightedthe complexity of the problemsand the difficulty of finding aresolution for Papua. After theimplementation of the specialautonomy, the Papuans havegrown poorer and theirchildren still do not haveaccess to sufficient education.

The Church has been focusingupon how it can be involved inhelping to resolve some ofthese cross cutting issuesfaced by the native Papuanpopulation. In 2008, there wasa big conference between thechurch and its people.Jayapura Bishop Dr. Leo LabaLadjar OFM asked the central,provincial or regencygovernment in Papua to limitthe number of immigrants. Hewanted the immigrants not totrade in villages. This was inaccordance to what waswritten in Otsus.

Looking at the multitude ofissues faced by Papuans theproposal for a dialoguebetween Jakarta and Papua aselaborated by one of the bestsons of Papua—Dr. Nelis TebayPr— in his book Jakarta –Papua Dialog: A PapuanPerspective. Within this bookhe explains that a dialogue isimportant and urgent ifIndonesia is to avoid violence.For violence does not close thegap between Jakarta – Papua,on the contrary it will reinforcethe divide. The government’sinconsistency in implementingOtsus has created distrustamong the public because thegovernment failed in its pledgeof welfare for the people. Anequal and respectful dialoguebetween fellow citizens coulddo much to reduce these

Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

dia

log

ue

; D

ea

co

n P

asto

r Jo

hn

Djo

ng

areflection of the situation theybelieved they faced. They weredisappointed by a governmentthat has failed to provide. Thenatural resources are startingto run out. The communicationis closed and there is no spacefor the Papuans to discusstheir problems with thegovernment. Furthermoreevery activity in thecommunity is always undersuspicion as if those peoplewanted to disintegrate theUnitary Republic of Indonesia(NKRI). This is obviously anexaggerated anxiety of certaininstitutions. The NationalIntelligence Agency (BIN),Indonesian Army, andIndonesian Police alwaysperceive the Papuans asseparatists. If such avenues ofdiscourse are closed then howcan the Indonesian state hopeto address these issues.

According to the IndonesianInstitute of Sciences (LIPI) inthe book Papua Road Map,they concluded that theconflict sources in Papua canbe categorised in foursections:

1. The marginalisationand discrimination the localpeople of Papua faced due toeconomic and politicaldevelopments and the massmigration to Papua since 1970.

2. The failure ofdevelopment, especially thedevelopment of education,health and the provision ofappropriate skills to enableindigenous Papuans to enterthe market economy.

3. The differentperceptions of history politicalidentity constructed betweenthe local people of Papua and


Th

e J

aka

rta

- P

ap

ua

dia

log

ue

; D

ea

co

n P

asto

r Jo

hn

Djo

ng

a

tensions and resolve some ofthe longstanding grievances.Neles Tebay reminds us thatthe dialogue is not aboutPapua’s independence butdiscussing issues relating toPapua which have not beendiscussed or fairly resolved.For the Papuans, a dialogue istheir chance to ask theIndonesian government whatsystems can be put in place tohelp develop democracy, anopportunity to reinforce themessage of the need foruniversal human rights.

It is important to recognisethat dialogue will be useless ifthe conflicted parties(Indonesian government andPapua) don’t admit to thepresent gap between them.Without reflecting upon thesefacts and acknowledging themthere can be little hope ofsuccess and reconciliation. ThePapuans also need to reflect onthe other victims of theirviolence. Despite the “Papua,Land of Peace” proclamationby the Papuans, customarycouncil, religiousorganisations, NGO and theregional government, Papuanshave been involved insustaining the conflict.Therefore, one of the mostsignificant goals of thedialogue should be to avoidcreating more victims ofviolence in Papua. Thedialogue if successful will be amark of a mature nation, forwhen one nation can control

the emotional being of itsdisparate parts with a coolheart and head then it cantruly be said to havedeveloped.

If it is done for a greater good,for peace, then I think that thedialogue should have supportfrom all components of thenation (military, police, NGO,religious groups, legislative,bureaucracy, and intelligence).The dialogue is an opening,the chance to develop anappropriate solution, a solutionthat reflects the nation’s prideand dignity.

The problems in Papua are noless important than otherissues occurring in the MiddleEast. However, it’s strange thatPresident SBY appears to befar more interested inresolving distant conflicts whilethe issues in Papua areneglected and left unresolved.A chief from the Amungmetribe, Dominikus Katagame,once said, “The Indonesiangovernment came like anarmy. The immigrants came toPapua like an army. Religiousleaders also behaved likemilitary personnel, ojek driver,office staff, they are all thesame. We don’t know wherewe can go since everyone thatcame to Papua acted like amilitary officer who can kill us,Papuans, anytime they want.”The dialogue will be importantas a means of understandingthese feelings, finding a way of

resolving the problems ofPapua as a fellow citizen.

I guess a way to end thisarticle is to convey myexpectations. I do think thatthe Jakarta – Papua dialogue isabsolutely necessary becauseit is related to the nation’spride and dignity. I think thatthe conflicts in Papua havebeen neglected too long by thecentral government. PresidentSBY has yet to state anythingsignificant during his past twoterms in office in resolving theproblems of Papua.

Many Papuans have died in theconflict. Amnesty Internationalstated that more or less100,000 Papuans have died asa result of conflict. 90 percentof Papuans who elected SBYhave shown their clear desireto end this injustice. Papua hasgiven 70 percent of its naturalresources to support Indonesiaand other countries in theworld. Papua is like a lostheaven full of naturalresources (gold, gas, copper,oil, forest, land, fish, nickel,etc.). I think Jakarta mustmove forwards on the offer ofa dialogue with Papua. ThePapuans are brave enough toparticipate in the dialogue withtheir fellow Indonesians;surely Jakarta can do thesame.

By Deacon John Djonga

Diocese Jayapura, Papua


Th

e E

U: B

uild

ing

Glo

ba

l S

up

po

rt fo

r H

um

an

Rig

hts

De

fen

de

rs

The protection of humanrights at home andabroad is a major

priority for the EuropeanUnion. This is reflected in thesubstantial resources devotedto human rights projects: €1.1billion for a seven-year periodunder the EuropeanInstrument for Democracy andHuman Rights (EIDHR) alone.It is also demonstrated by thehigh-level politicalengagement undertaken bythe EU with many countries,exemplified in Indonesia bythe launch of the EU-IndonesiaHuman Rights Dialogue lastNovember. What is of equalimportance, however, is thedegree to which the EUsucceeds in forging effectivecollaboration with grassrootshuman rights defenders.

At a global level the adoptionof the EU policy guidelines onHuman Rights Defenders in2004 sought to put thatrelationship with civil societyactivists on a firmer and morestructured footing. The newpolicy underscored the EU'scommitment to taking actionto protect the interests ofdefenders through the UN andother global bodies, throughsustained financial assistanceand through action at the local

level by EU Delegations and EUMember State embassies. Inaddition to politicalrepresentations to authoritiesin countries where humanrights defenders have facedprosecution, and supportiveactivities such as trialobservation, the EU is fundinga network of 11 internationalorganisations which are taskedwith responding quickly wherea human rights defender is inperil.

The EU has taken several othersteps to translate the EU policyguidelines into concrete action.EU missions across the worldhave been charged with theformulation of local strategiesto support human rightsdefenders. An integral part ofthat process has beenconsultation with civil societyitself: here in Jakarta, the EUDelegation held a meeting inApril with a diverse cross-section of NGO activists inorder to gain first-handinformation on the legal,political and socialenvironment for human rightsdefenders in Indonesia. Thisconsultation is only the firststage in our efforts to buildstructured engagement onhuman rights with civil society.In addition to regular routine

meetings, such exchanges willbe of particular importanceahead of the annual sessionsof the EU-Indonesia HumanRights Dialogue. EU missionshave also been asked toappoint contact points forhuman rights defenders fromamongst their staff: theundersigned is the contactpoint for the EU Delegation.

The feedback received fromcivil society is helpful in severalrespects. First, it helps to fine-tune the partnership onhuman rights that the EU andIndonesia are cultivating,bearing in mind that this is acountry which has not onlyemerged as a successfuldemocracy but which isadopting a leadership positionregionally on human rights.Our shared commitment tohuman rights is well-illustratedby the prominent position thatsuch concerns occupy in theEU-Indonesia Partnership andCo-operation Agreement(PCA) signed in November2009. Second, it contributes tothe establishment of localpriorities for the regular callsfor proposals launched tosupport human rights micro-projects in Indonesia. Third, itensures that the EU Delegationand EU Member States

guidelines for Human Rights DefendersEU

An Indonesian approach


Th

e E

U: B

uild

ing

Glo

ba

l S

up

po

rt fo

r H

um

an

Rig

hts

De

fen

de

rs

represented in Jakarta candraw on the rich expertise tobe found within civil society onkey issues of global concern tothe EU, including the deathpenalty and the InternationalCriminal Court.

Here in Indonesia, thedevelopment of co-operationon human rights with allrelevant actors – ingovernment and civil society –is an integral part of EU policy.That is not to ignore thedifferent roles played by suchactors and it is important tobear in mind that the EU fullyexpects to be held to accountby civil society for how well –or otherwise – it is succeedingin implementing its humanrights pledges both here and inthe rest of the world. As such,we see our developingdialogue with human rightsdefenders as both anopportunity to learn from eachother and to engage in honestand frank discussions aboutthe EU's role in human rights.

In April 2009 PBI together with other human rightsorganisations, British parliamentarians and the BritishForeign & Commonwealth Office held a conference inLondon on the security of HRD and the implementationof the EU Guidelines for the security of HRD. The mainoutcome of the conference resulting from inputsreceived from HRD, government staff and PBI was thedevelopment of recommendations which have beenadapted to the Indonesian context. The IndonesianProject of PBI is committed to assist the EU delegatesand local civil society to fulfil these recommendations.

1) European embassies and the EU delegationshould strive to be fully aware of and make as much useof the diverse mechanisms and actions suggested tothem in the guidelines. 2) In addition to reactive measures and preventivemeasures mechanisms for affirmative actions should beestablished and local partners clearly informed aboutmeans and requirements for inputting into these.3) Local activists should get the opportunity toinput on the implementation of localised plans andmechanisms which should then in turn be shared withthe local community. 4) The EU Guidelines for HRD should be proactivelydisseminated in Indonesia.5) Special attention should be paid to accessingand monitoring the activities of HRD in remote areas inspite of logistical problems and restrictions.6) Gender issues should be taken into accountthroughout the process.7) PBI encourages EU Embassies to work togetheron human rights and act as a group to increase theireffectiveness and minimise possible negative impact onbilateral relations.8) Existing national human rights mechanisms andreform processes should be taken into account andsupported to strengthen national capacity to upholdhuman rights.

PBI recommendations for theimplementation of the EU

Guidelines on the security of HRDin Indonesia.

This article was submitted byCharles Whitely the FirstSecretary and Head of Political,Press and Information Sectionfor the EU delegations inIndonesia.


The fact that it is notalways safe to fight forthe implementation of

human rights is a sad fact thatis well known to many peoplein Indonesia. Ready to risktheir well-being and even theirlives, many people took up thecall to challenge thesuppressive Suharto regime inthe 1990s leading to the end ofthe “New Order Regime,” andan era of democratic reformand increased space for civilsociety to operate and grow.New laws laid the groundworkfor stronger protection ofHuman Rights (HR), the workof a National Commission forHuman Rights (Komnas HAM)and the legal prosecution ofhuman rights violators.

Reform and democratisationare a slow processes and themove towards democratisationdoes not ensure an end to HRviolations. Many civil societyactors in Indonesia continuetheir fight to uphold basicrights, oppose corruption,impunity and the misuse ofstate authority. In this workthey touch on sensitive issuesfor those in powerful positions:in the armed forces, thegovernment and the businesssector. As a result of this workthey might experience threats,violence and intimidation. Insearch for protection they turnto different sides: firstly theirown government, their courts

and police, but when they feelthat they can’t find assistantthere - or even see themselvesthreatened by these sameinstitutions - they lookelsewhere for support: to theinternational community,represented by internationalorganisations like PBI andinternational actors like theUnited Nations (UN) and theEuropean Union (EU). Suchinstitutions have committedthemselves to the universalvalidity of human rights and tosupporting grassroots HumanRights Defenders (HRD).

The EU Guidelines call upon EUembassies and missions toactively support HR activists indeveloping countries andcontribute to their protectionthrough a variety of possibleactions and mechanisms.Furthermore, it underlines thecontinued need forinternational support andprotection of activists inIndonesia.

With the continuous rotation ofembassy staff, it has beenhard for local organisations tobuild trust and lasting personalrelationships with theEuropean diplomatic corps.Though a number of Europeanembassies have fundingprogrammes and longstanding relationships withlocal Non GovernmentalOrganisations (NGO) and

individuals working on HR,some EU countries do notplace a big focus on HR, forexample due to a lack ofresources. The result is thatfew Indonesian organisationsseem to be aware of the EUGuidelines, and even fewerappear to attach a practicaluse to them. At this point intime, the Guidelines are rarelyperceived as actionable. It isfor this reason that issues suchas structure, implementationand monitoring of the EUGuidelines are perceived tolack continuity, transparencyand clarity. This being thecase, local NGOs typicallycollaborate with establishedcontacts without referring toEuropean regulations. Theresult of these factors is thatthere is an opinion held bymany local NGOs focusing onHR that “European” support isat best fragmented and an EUstance is lacking.

This reality should beperceived as a missedopportunity for action. The EUGuidelines should be aneffective tool for IndonesianHRDs. By focusing upon theEU Guidelines as aninstrument to support HRDand working in cooperation EUEmbassies will be able toaddress such criticisms andrespond more effectively oncases and issues.Furthermore, joint actions

Th

e E

U G

uid

elin

es fo

r H

um

an

Rig

hts

De

fen

de

rs

The implementation of the EuropeanUnion Guidelines for Human Rights

Defenders in Indonesia, an opportunityand a challenge!


might bring together a biggerpool of resources as well asincreasing access to remoteareas. This offers opportunitiesfor small embassies to actupon HR issues without havingto sacrifice too many of theirlimited resources.

With the establishment of thepost of High Representative ofthe Union for Foreign Affairsand Security Policy, and amove towards greatercooperation in the field offoreign affairs in the EU, thegeneral picture has begun tochange.

The empowerment of the EUdelegation as well as theestablishment of a HR workinggroup among the Europeanembassies is beneficial.Combined with the awaitedlaunch of the Indonesia-EU HRdialogue this has resulted in arenewed European interest inHR in Indonesia. With theimplementation of the EUGuidelines, EU embassies inpartnership with theIndonesian Government are inthe position to help maintain

and sustain the developmentof HR in Indonesia.

In April local NGOs, theEuropean delegation and anumber of Europeanembassies came together todiscuss the situation of HRD inIndonesia and possible formsof cooperation. PBI welcomesthis event as a first steptowards better cooperationbetween Indonesian civilsociety and the Europeandiplomatic corps on thesecurity of HRD.

It was felt that oneconsultation cannot be enoughto establish cooperation andcoordination nor to ensureclarity on the content andmechanisms of the EUGuidelines. It can thereforeonly be hoped that both sideswill continue to coordinate.The Guidelines are a valuabletool if implemented and usedin an efficient and transparentway. The EU delegation hasmade the first steps towardsbringing civil society togetherand informing the participantsof the April consultation about

further steps to be taken. Itwill be a challenge for local andinternational actors to followup on the implementation ofthe guidelines and worktogether to assess threats toHRD. They must putpreventive measures intoplace and regularly evaluatethe effectiveness of supportingmechanisms as well as furtheropportunities for coordination.

Clear and sustainedcommunication is essential tounderstanding the needs,limitations and responsibilitiesof both sides. This is evenmore important as internalregulations mean that the fulltext of the guidelines will notbe released. If the EU isunwilling to release theimplementation strategy forthe EU Guidelines, then it willbe even harder to create aninclusive and efficient form ofcooperation.

Th

e E

U G

uid

elin

es fo

r H

um

an

Rig

hts

De

fen

de

rs

By Bente Hansen

PBI volunteer

Indonesia Project


A fo

rme

r vo

lun

tee

r re

turn

s

When were you a volunteerwith the IP? Where did you liveand work?

I have been a volunteer with the IPfrom September 2007 to December2008, working for almost one yearin Jakarta and another four monthsin Jayapura.

What made you decide to joinPBI initially?

I have studied Political Science andHistory, for me a central focus ofboth subjects has been thequestions: How does war and peacedevelop? How can organisedviolence be transformed into peace?

At the end of 2005 I was searchingfor NGOs with whom I couldvolunteer in conflict areas abroad.At first I was planning to head forAfrican countries like Sudan. Then Igot into contact with PBI inGermany and was fascinated by itsconcept of strengthening civilsociety in conflict areas.

Can you recall any particularhigh points, where you reallyfelt that the work you weredoing was making a differenceand having a positive impact?

I remember many moments whereI felt the positive impact one canhave while volunteering with PBI.For example travelling from Jakartato Biak where I did a ProtectiveAccompaniment together with acolleague from the Jayapura team.

There I witnessed the foundation ofone of our client organisation BUK(Bersatu Untuk Kebenaran, Unitedfor Truth).

That week was my first time inPapua, when I walked through thelittle town on the first day there I feltas if I had left Asia and entered aplace very different from Java orSumatra.

During my time in Jayapura weorganised a fieldtrip to Manokwarito renew the contract with clientorganisation LP3BH (LembagaPenelitian, Pengkajian danPengembangan Bantuan Hukum,Institute of Research, Analysis andDevelopment for Legal Aid). Wespent a week there meeting withour clients, other NGOs andauthorities. Half a year later Iaccompanied Yan ChristianWarinussy of LP3BH when PBIinvited him to Europe. Thededication and effective work ofLP3BH really impressed me and itmade me very happy as a PBIvolunteer to play a little role instrengthening their work andproviding security.

The contact with Suciwati and herfriends in Jakarta was anotherexample where I felt PBI had a verypositive impact, especially when wewere able to invite her to Europe ata very important stage in the Munircase.

What are some of the importantlessons you took away from

A formervolunteer

returns

An interview with

Gerrit Meyer by Nico

Prins (PBI)


A fo

rme

r vo

lun

tee

r re

turn

sworking with PBI in Indonesia?

One important lesson would be thatit takes a strong resilience whenworking under Papuan conditions orseeking a strategy which canfurther the work of a PBI project.Above all I learned how strong ateam can be and have a positiveimpact even under often verychallenging conditions. In thedifferent teams I was working on Iexperienced conflict, but far moreoften the development of a true andstrong team spirit. It was a timewhere I learned to really trust myteammates and to have that trustrewarded.

The fact that my time with PBI wasthe first time I lived and worked inan Asian country provided me withthe experience of coping withworking in the context of differentcultures, be it in Jakarta or Papuaand also Aceh. It was a step into theunknown and I felt very much athome everywhere in Indonesia.

You came back to the IP at theend of April as a returningvolunteer. What were youdoing since completing yourfirst contract with the IP?

I continued working for PBI inGermany, first as a member of staffthen as a volunteer. My areas ofwork with the country group wereadvocacy with Germanparliamentarians and governmentofficials and trips to Brussels.

I also took part in the educationprogram of the German countrygroup, where former volunteers goto schools and give presentationsand workshops on the work of PBIprojects, often combined withissues like resource conflicts,horizontal conflict and the HRsituation in project countries and inGermany. With another ex-IPvolunteer I developed and gave

presentations about topics like HRand resource conflict in Papua orcenter-periphery conflicts in post-Suharto Indonesia.

Did you ever consider workingfor a PBI project in a differentcountry?

When I had been introduced to PBIand its work I considered going as avolunteer either to Indonesia orNepal, but after I chose Indonesia Istuck with this project. Duringseveral preparation weekendsbefore I left for Indonesia and aftermy return I met with manyvolunteers and ex-volunteers fromother PBI projects and we hadmany fascinating exchanges aboutexperiences, cases and the cultureof the various PBI projects.

How did you feel about comingback to the IP, and how muchdo you think that the situationhas changed since you werelast working in Indonesia?

I was a bit worried that the projectwill be in troubled waters when Iarrived, but I am also enjoyingliving and working in Indonesiaagain. I hope that I will be able tocontribute to the current work of theproject through my past experienceand what I learned about the stanceof German government and civilsociety and EU officials on humanrights in Indonesia and especiallyPapua.

I think the situation on the nationallevel has improved because of there-election of SBY, hopefully this willresult in more more liberal politicsthan would have occurred withother possible candidates. On theother hand I am very concernedabout developments in Papua and Ihope that PBI will be able to have apositive impact there in the future.


Sta

ff p

rofile

; D

ian

e H

ed

rick, In

tern

atio

na

l V

olu

nte

er

Co

ord

ina

tor

Before you came to work for theIndonesia Project you wereworking in Austria as a lecturer.What made you decide that youwanted to work in Indonesia?

Actually I was working freelance asa consultant, trainer and researcherin conflict transformation whichmeans that I did some lecturing onuniversity courses, supervision ofstudents, etc. but also worked oninternational projects having to dowith conflict in one way or another(Israel-Palestine, Albania) and alsoa lot of training work withprofessionals from (I)NGOs, IGOsand local institutions such as theAustrian police. Although freelancework provides variety and flexibilityI missed being able to work in asustained way in a stable team on asingle project. As I studied theBuddhist countries of S.E. Asia(with research and voluntary workin Thailand), and have studiedIslam, I was interested toexperience a Muslim S. E. Asian

country.

You have had a long relationshipwith PBI over the years. Whatfirst attracted you to PBI?

Back when I was young, working asa secretary and doing my peaceactivism and study of non-violencein my spare time, my bosses and Iused to have discussions about non-violence, justice and faith and I wasalways challenged with questionslike “what would you do aboutHitler?” or “what would you do ifyour family was being attacked?” Ialways had to respond, “I believethis and this but I don’t know how Ireally would react”. It was thesequestions that led me to studyabout the Buddhist resistance to theVietnam War as an example ofpeople facing terrible violence fromall sides and nevertheless holding toan ideal of non-violence. In this wayI could prove, it is at least possible.The question remained, however,could I do the same. Years later

Interview with

Diane Hedrick


when I had systematically built upmy knowledge and experience inthe peace and development field Iheard about PBI while working inThailand and the combination of thecommitment to non-violence andthe non-interventionist approach(making space for peace) reallycaught my imagination. I felt thiswas worthwhile work that wouldalso challenge my commitment tonon-violence in the midst of greatinjustice and violence in Sri Lanka.

How do you perceive working forthe IP compares to yourprevious experience of workingfor PBI?

PBI as a whole seems to havechanged a lot over the years that Ihave been away. I alwaysunderstood PBI to be a peaceorganisation now it often presentsitself as a human rightsorganisation and I am only nowbeginning to understand theimplications of this. Also theorganisation has developed a greatdeal in terms of procedures andpolicies and that is to be welcomed.In the case of the IP I am in a rolein the organisation that I have nothad before. I have been volunteer,trainer, chair of a project committeebut never a staff person and thisbrings a fresh perspective. Also theconflicts in Indonesia, for all theirviolent episodes, could becharacterised as low intensityconflict. The conflict in Sri Lankabetween government related forcesand a radical Singalese group, theJVP, was intense and large-scale.

Has this new position asVolunteer Coordinator fulfilledthe expectations that you hadcoming into the job?

I would say that it has and thensome! The biggest difference to howI expected the work environment tobe is the degree of uncertainty thataffects so many aspects of, andpeople in, the project due to manyexternal and internal factors.However, I find this challengevaluable as I am able to practisebeing adaptable – something that Ibelieve is a key skill in any peacework and I identified as an areawhere I would need to developmore.

What has been the highlight ofyour time working with the IP?

Visiting the teams and getting toknow volunteers personally.

How would you hope to helpdevelop the IP as VolunteerCoordinator for the IndonesiaProject?

It is my wish to make volunteeringwith PBI Indonesia, not only auseful service for clients andpartners but also a valuablelearning experience for individualsin which they gain knowledge aboutpeacebuilding, Indonesia andthemselves and develop and grow interms of their skills and degree of(self-)awareness.

In May there was a newrecruitment drive of volunteersfor the IP. What would you sayto people thinking aboutapplying to the IP at the nexttraining?

I will say they need to be open andadaptable, to be willing to serve andeager to learn but not within a fixedset of expectations as the project isin a process of change and anuncertain environment.S

taff p

rofile

; D

ian

e H

ed

rick, In

tern

atio

na

l V

olu

nte

er

Co

ord

ina

tor

Peace Brigades International, founded in 1981 in Canada, is an international NGO inspired by Gandhiand non-violent traditions. PBI uses protective accompaniment through international presence and non-violent action to deter politically motivated violence and expand space for human rights and peaceactivism in areas of civil conflict and repression. On invitation of local organisations, PBI sends teams oftrained volunteers into areas of conflict to provide international presence and protectiveaccompaniment. Currently, PBI works in five countries: Colombia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Mexico andNepal.

Vision

PBI envisions a world in which people address conflicts non violently, where human rights are universallyupheld and social justice and intercultural respect have become a reality.

Mission

PBI works to open a space for peace in which conflicts can be dealt with non-violently. We use a strategyof international presence and concern that supports local initiatives and contributes to developing aculture of peace and justice. We act on request of local non-violent groups working for human rights andsocial change in regions where there is oppression and conflict.

The aim of PBI's international presence is to accompany both political and social processes through ajoint strategy of deterring violence and promoting active non-violence. Our international teams ofvolunteers use methods such as protective accompaniment, peace education, independent observationand analysis of the conflict situation. In addition, PBI learns about, develops, and models forms ofnonviolent intervention. Where possible, we initiate contacts with all the parties to a conflict in order toinform of our presence.

PBI supports this work through a broad international network of organizations and individuals. Ouridentity is built upon non-hierarchical structures and consensual processes.

IP MandateTo contribute to positive peace-building and the improvement of the human rights situation in Indonesiathrough a proactive international presence, committed to the principles of non-violence and non-partisanship.

The views expressed by third-parties are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of PBI.

Jakarta Sub TeamT/F +62 21 391 3734

[email protected]

Papua Sub TeamT/F +62 967 589191

[email protected]

Coordination OfficeT/F +62 969 32816

[email protected]

Peace Brigades Internationalmaking space for peace

Indonesia Project

quarterly bulletin june 2010 - peace brigades international

Documents