[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: WHEN WILL
INDONESIA'S MILITARY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE
FOR DELIBERATE AND SYSTEMATIC ABUSES IN
WEST PAPUA?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 22, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-132
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
58-430 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York RON PAUL, Texas
DIANE E. WATSON, California JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri MIKE PENCE, Indiana
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOE WILSON, South Carolina
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, California TED POE, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BARBARA LEE, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
DIANE E. WATSON, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Mr. Joseph Y. Yun, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East
Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State............ 14
Mr. Robert Scher, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South
and Southeast Asia, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, U.S.
Department of Defense.......................................... 21
Pieter Drooglever, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Institute of
Netherlands History............................................ 39
Mr. Octovianus Mote, Founder, West Papua Action Network,
President, Papua Resource Center............................... 45
Mr. Henkie Rumbewas, International Advocate, Australia West Papua
Association (AWPA)............................................. 52
Mr. Nicholas Simeone Messet, West Papua.......................... 58
Mr. Salamon Maurits Yumame, Head of FORDEM (The Democratic Forum) 65
S. Eben Kirksey, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor, The
Graduate Center, The City University of New York............... 73
Sophie Richardson, Ph.D., Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights
Watch.......................................................... 80
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment: Prepared statement......... 6
The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 12
Mr. Joseph Y. Yun: Prepared statement............................ 17
Mr. Robert Scher: Prepared statement............................. 24
Pieter Drooglever, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 42
Mr. Octovianus Mote: Prepared statement.......................... 47
Mr. Henkie Rumbewas: Prepared statement.......................... 55
Mr. Nicholas Simeone Messet: Prepared statement.................. 61
Mr. Salamon Maurits Yumame: Prepared statement................... 68
S. Eben Kirksey, Ph.D.: Prepared statement....................... 75
Sophie Richardson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement..................... 82
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 114
Hearing minutes.................................................. 116
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Material submitted for the
record......................................................... 117
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: WHEN WILL INDONESIA'S MILITARY BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE FOR DELIBERATE AND SYSTEMATIC ABUSES IN WEST PAPUA?
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific
and the Global Environment,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The subcommittee hearing will come to
order. This is the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment. And the topic for
discussion this afternoon with our witnesses is ``Crimes
Against Humanity: When Will Indonesia's Military Be Held
Accountable for Deliberate and Systematic Abuses in West
Papua?''
I am going to begin the hearing by making my opening
statement, and I will then defer to my colleagues who have also
joined me this afternoon, my good friend, Dr. Diane Watson,
former ambassador to the FSM and a Member from the State of
California. Also, my dear colleague, Congressman Inglis, has
joined us at this hearing.
After giving and presenting our opening statements, then we
will then have our friends from the administration testify
before us. So I will begin now with my opening statement.
My good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the
subcommittee is not here with us, but that is fully
understandable. There has been so much on our schedules. And I
want to note for the record that my dear friend and colleague,
Congressman Don Payne, unfortunately, is still on travel. But
he does definitely want to send his personal regards and to
submit his statement as part of the record of this hearing.
To my knowledge, today's hearing is historic. This hearing
is the first hearing ever held in the U.S. Congress that gives
voice to the people of West Papua. Since 1969, the people of
West Papua have been deliberately and systematically subjected
to slow motion genocide, in my humble opinion, by Indonesian
military forces. And yet Indonesia declares that the issue is
an internal matter, while the U.S. Department of State
recognizes and respects the territorial integrity of Indonesia.
The truth is, this is no issue of territorial integrity or an
internal matter. The record is clear on this point.
West Papua was a former Dutch colony for years, just as
East Timor was a former Portuguese colony, just as Indonesia
was a former colony of the Netherlands. Because of its status
as a former colony, East Timor achieved its independence from
Indonesia in 2002 through a referendum sanctioned by the United
Nations despite Indonesia's serious objections over East
Timor's right of self-determination.
In contrast, in 1962, the United States pressured the Dutch
to turn over control of West Papua to the United Nations. Under
the U.S.-brokered deal, then known as Ambassador Ellsworth
Bunker's proposal, Indonesia was to make arrangements with the
assistance and participation of the United Nations to give
Papuans an opportunity to determine whether they wished to
become part of Indonesia or not.
In what became known as the Act of No Choice carried out in
1969, 1,025 West Papuan elders, under heavy military
surveillance, were selected to vote on behalf of some 800,000
West Papuans regarding the territory's political status. In
spite of serious violations of the U.N. charter and no broad-
based referendum, West Papua was forced to become a part of
Indonesia at the barrel of a gun.
According to the Congressional Research Service, and I
quote,
``Declassified documents released in July 2004 indicate
that the United States supported Indonesia's takeover
of Papua in the lead up to the 1969 Act of Free Choice,
even though it was understood that such a move was
likely unpopular with the Papuans. The documents
reportedly indicate that the United States estimated
that between 85 and 90 percent of Papuans were opposed
to Indonesian rule and that, as a result, the
Indonesians were incapable of winning an open
referendum at the time of Papua's transition from Dutch
colonial rule. Such steps were evidently considered
necessary to maintain the support of Suharto's
Indonesia during the height of the Cold War.''
Bluntly put, in exchange for Suharto's anti-Communist
stance, the United States expended the hopes and dreams and the
lives of some 100,000 West Papuans who consequently died as a
result of Indonesian military rule. Although some challenge
this estimate, it is an indisputable fact that Indonesia has
deliberately and systematically committed crimes against
humanity and has yet to be held accountable.
While I have expressed my concern that there is strong
indication that the Indonesian Government has committed
genocide against the West Papuans, I am disappointed that the
U.S. Department of State requested that I omit the word
``genocide'' in the initial title I put forward for this
hearing. The State Department requested a change in title based
on the assertion that the word genocide is a legal term.
Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of Crimes of Genocide defines
genocide as, and I quote,
``any of the following acts committed with intent to
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group; killing members of the
group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members
of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the groups;
forcibly transferring children of the group to another
group.''
This definition of genocide under international law
accurately describes the crimes against humanity perpetrated by
Indonesia's military, whether the U.S. State Department agrees
or not. But given U.S. complicity, it is little wonder that
every administration wishes to distance itself from this
ugliness.
As Joseph Conrad wrote in his book, The Heart of Darkness,
and I quote,
``The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the
taking away from those who have a different complexion
or slightly flatter noses than ourselves is not a
pretty thing when you look into it too much.''
When you look into it too much, nothing about Indonesia's
ruthless brutality or U.S. complicity is a pretty thing. Three
years ago, I led a congressional delegation to Indonesia under
personal promise from President SBY and Vice President Kalla
that I would be granted 5 days to visit Biak, Manokwari, and
most importantly, Jayapura, in support of efforts to implement
special autonomy that was approved by the Government of
Indonesia since 2001.
However, while en route to Jakarta, I received word that
the Indonesian Government would only grant 3 days for my visit.
Upon my arrival in November 3 years ago, I was informed that I
would be granted only 1 day and that I would not be allowed
even to visit Jayapura. As it played out, I was granted 2 hours
in Biak and 10 minutes in Manokwari.
In Biak, I met with Governor Suebu and our traditional,
religious and local leaders hand selected by the government.
Other Papuans, like Chief Tom Beanal and Mr. Willie Mandowen,
were detained by the military until my office interceded. U.S.
Ambassador Cameron Hume and I also had to make our way through
a military barricade because Indonesian military forces, TNI,
had blocked Papuans from meeting our delegation. For the
record, I am submitting photos showing the excessive presence
of military forces.
In Manokwari, the military presence was even worse. Prior
to my arrival in Manokwari, I was told that I would be meeting
with the Governor, only to learn upon my arrival that he was in
China and had been there for the past 5 days. Ten minutes
later, I was put on a plane while the TNI, in full riot gear,
forcibly kept the Papuans from meaningful dialogue with our
delegation.
At this time, I would like to share with my colleagues some
videotape of my visit 3 years ago. But before showing this--
hold it--I want to give an opportunity to the members of our
Papuan delegation. I think they have a song that they would
like to sing for our audience. Gentlemen, please be patient
with us. These people traveled all the way from Indonesia, so
the least that we could do is to give them the courtesy of time
to share some of their culture. I told them to make sure the
song is melodious and meaningful and good for everybody to
hear. You can come here in the front. Come right up here in the
front row here.
[Song performed in hearing room.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. I wanted to share
with our government witnesses and my colleagues a little video
that was taken on my visit to West Papua. And please go ahead.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Faleomavaega. That was my 10 minute experience in
Manokwari. After this experience and upon my return to
Washington, I wrote to President SBY expressing my
disappointment. But Jakarta never responded to my letter 3
years ago. And in March, 2 years ago, Chairman Don Payne of the
Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa and World Health joined
me in sending another letter to President SBY which expressed
our deep concern about Indonesia's misuse of military force. We
included photographs and a DVD of my experience while in Biak
and Manokwari. Again, Jakarta never bothered to reply to our
letters.
Two years ago in March, Chairman Payne and I also wrote to
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and included a copy of
our letter to President SBY, as well as the DVD and
photographs. Despite the serious concerns we raised about
Indonesia's failure to live up to its promises to allow Members
of Congress access to Jayapura and our request to restrict
funding to train Indonesia's military forces, his reply in
April was trite and indifferent, as if West Papua was of no
consequence to our national agenda. He concluded his letter by
erroneously stating, ``TNI performance on human rights has
improved dramatically.'' Copies of these letters as well as the
photographs and DVD are included for the record.
Copies of our materials which we sent in March 2 years ago
to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations and House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees on State and Foreign Operations and the House
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and the Congressional
Black Caucus are also included for the record.
In March 5 years ago, Chairman Payne and I wrote to
Secretary General Kofi Annan asking for a review of the United
Nations' conduct in West Papua. Thirty five other Members of
Congress from the Congressional Black Caucus signed the joint
letter, which I am also submitting that letter for the record.
This year, Chairman Payne and I once more have spearheaded
an effort calling upon this administration and President Obama
to deal fairly with the people of West Papua and to meet with
the Team of 100 indigenous Papuan leaders during his upcoming
visit, hopefully in November of this year, to Indonesia.
Although our letter of June 9 of this year was signed by 50
members of the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Department of State
could not be bothered to send us a thoughtful reply. Instead,
we received a dismissive letter in August signed by the
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, rather than by the
U.S. Secretary of State, which sends a clear signal that this
administration may not be any different from any other in its
response to addressing our grave concerns about West Papua. As
a matter of record, I am also including these documents as part
of the record.
Also, I am including a video that, due to its sensitive
subject matter I cannot and will not show. The video depicts a
violent murder of a Papuan citizen who was killed, and I hate
to use the word--gutted--by a member of the Indonesian special
force corps, or Brigade Mobile, while the victim was still
alive and pleading for someone to kill him in order to put him
out of his misery. This isn't the only murder. The late Papuan
leader Theys Hiyo Eluay was also savagely murdered, and the
list of lives lost goes on and on.
As the chairman of this subcommittee, I believe I have been
very patient. Yes, I realize the importance of the U.S.-
Indonesia relationship. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim
nation in the world, with some 224 million people, and the U.S.
has a strong interest in reaching out to the Islamic and Muslim
world. But our own struggle against Islamic militancy should
not come at the expense of the pain and killings and suffering
of the people of West Papua. This is not the America that I
know of. We can and must do better. In his statement before the
United Nations against apartheid, Nelson Mandela said, and I
quote, ``It will forever remain an accusation and challenge to
all men and women of conscience that it took so long as it has
before all of us stood up and to say enough is enough.'' This
is how I honestly feel about the situation in West Papua. It is
my sincere hope that today's hearing will help us find the way
forward.
So far, Indonesia has failed miserably to implement special
autonomy, and as a result, there is a sense of growing
frustration among the Papuans, and rightfully so. I said years
ago, and this has always been my premise in saying to my
friends in Indonesia, since Indonesia has done such a lousy job
in the treatment of the West Papuans, you might as well give
them their independence. According to CRS, and I quote,
``Migration by non-Melanesian Indonesians from
elsewhere in the nation appears to be a critical part
of the mounting tensions. By some accounts, Melanesian
Papuans will be in the minority in their own homeland
by the year 2015.''
There is so much more I want to say about the commercial
exploitation of West Papua's renowned mineral wealth, which
includes vast reserves of gold and copper and nickel and oil
and gas, and yes, an American company, Freeport Mining Company,
which has played a shameful role in this exploitation. I will
address these issues in my questioning of our witnesses.
In conclusion, I want to thank Edmund McWilliams, a retired
U.S. Senior Foreign Service Officer of the State Department,
who has been a long-time advocate for the people of West Papua.
Mr. McWilliams was unable to be with us today, but he has
submitted testimony for the record that will be included in
today's hearing.
I also want to welcome our Papuan leaders who have flown at
considerable expense to testify before this subcommittee. I
presume none flew at the expense of the Indonesian Government,
but we will find out during these proceedings. Most Papuan
leaders who are with us today have lived the struggle. Whatever
the differences and whatever the situations, some have returned
home after being refugees or in asylum in other countries,
returned home and reclaimed Indonesian citizenship. I am
unclear as to their role in the struggle that they have given
up and never fully lived. I hope they will provide an
explanation at this hearing.
And now I recognize my good friend, Congressman Inglis from
South Carolina for his opening statement, if he has one.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of
things. One is, thank you to those that performed. That was a
treat to come here and hear that. And what telling video there
that the chairman presented. And his opening statement, I
think, shows the value of Members of Congress traveling to
places like you traveled to. You know, I have never been to
Indonesia, and really don't have firsthand knowledge of these
facts. But the chairman went there, obviously at some risk to
himself, and to do so is to gain firsthand knowledge of the
situation. And I wish that more Americans who are in the mood
right now of saying there is no need to do any of that could
have seen that video and heard what you said, Mr. Chairman,
because I think they might change their mind and realize how
important it is for the Foreign Affairs Committee especially,
and other committees as well, to be engaged in that kind of
firsthand fact finding because you are able now to run a very
knowledgeable hearing.
So I should just defer to you and say thank you for
essentially educating the rest of us by the video and the
opening statement. And appreciate the opportunity to be here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
And one of the things that I think our friends from West Papua,
Indonesia, as I tried to inform them, one of the unique
features of American democracy is that Congress is a co-equal
branch with the executive branch of government. Separation of
powers, and under our constitutional privileges, we have the
power to conduct oversight hearings as a way to counterbalance
whatever activities or whatever it is that the President, in
his honest opinion, is doing the right thing for the American
people and for our Government and again, I thank the gentleman
for his kind comments.
And by the way, I was a little concerned, but I think
basically what I wanted to share with my colleagues is that the
people just simply want to meet and to express their concerns
on some of the issues that have been lying low or under the
table and not been brought out for public scrutiny. And this is
something that people have asked me: ``Well, why are you so
interested in West Papua? You are not even Papuan.'' I say,
``That is true. But over 100 years ago, many of my relatives
and people from Samoa were missionaries who went to Papua and
shared Christianity as a religion with many of the Papuan
people. And one of my relatives served as a pastor, a
missionary there for some 17 years, and three of his children
are buried there.'' So I guess that is the kinship with the
people of West Papua.
And I have always wondered, who were the so-called experts
who divided our Pacific people, saying that Micronesians are
people from small islands, because that is what the word,
Micronesia, refers to; and Polynesians are from many islands.
And then they give an ethnic description to our brothers and
sisters from Melanesia because they are Black. That kind of has
a little tinge of racism. And I don't know who the idiot was,
whether he was an anthropologist or archeologist who gave this
description to the peoples of the Pacific.
So with that, my good friend, the gentleman, I thank you.
The gentlelady from California for her opening statement.
Ms. Watson. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a
very timely hearing to look at the situation in Papua. And I
join you in your concerns regarding the Government of
Indonesia. A Papuan journalist was recently found dead with
signs of torture, reports of political repression, and
allegations of military campaigns; disseminating indigenous
communities. The State Department report on Indonesia released
this year notes that although Indonesia generally respected the
rights of its citizens, there have been problems this year
citing killings by security forces. Though most agree that the
crimes have been committed against the indigenous population,
there is less agreement that it has been done in a deliberate
and systematic way by the government in Jakarta. It is
important to understand the intent and the method of the recent
actions of the government. However, tensions are on the rise
and separatist sentiments are growing.
The Papuan people assemblies just voted against autonomy
status because they do not feel that it is serving the people.
In migration is also causing angst in the native population, as
they are rapidly becoming the minority in their own homeland.
It is important that we address this growing unrest in West
Papua.
The United States has already been documented going against
the will of the people. If you recall, declassified documents
released in 2004 indicated that the U.S. supported Indonesia's
takeover of Papua in the lead up to the 1969 Act of Free
Choice, even as it was understood that such a move was likely
unpopular to the Papuans. As this administration struggles to
find a position on the issue, I hope it will consider the
rights and the abuse suffered by the people of West Papua.
Indonesia is a vital nation in the fight against Islamic
extremists, and it is a past home of our current President,
Barack Obama. I look forward to hearing the administration's
position and their action plan on this most dire situation. So
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the remainder of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank the gentlelady for her statement.
And at this time, I would like to introduce our two witnesses
representing the administration. The first gentleman is Mr.
Joseph Yun, who is currently the Deputy Assistant Secretary in
the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the U.S.
Department of State, responsible primarily for relations with
Southeast Asia and the ASEAN countries. He previously held
positions as Director of the office of Maritime Southeast Asia
in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the
Department of State. He was also Minister-Counselor for
political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Korea. Mr. Yun's other
overseas postings include Thailand, France, Indonesia and Hong
Kong.
Mr. Yun joined the Foreign Service in 1985. He is a career
member of the senior Foreign Service. And before joining the
Foreign Service, he was a senior economist for Data Resources,
Incorporated, in Massachusetts. Mr. Yun holds degrees from the
London School of Economics and the University of Wales. I am
very, very happy that he is able to come this afternoon to
testify.
Our other witness today is Secretary Robert Scher. He is
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for South and
Southeast Asia. In this capacity, Mr. Scher serves as the
principal advisor to senior leadership within the Department of
Defense for all policy matters pertaining to strategies and
plans including interagency issues for international strategy
development and implementation. Mr. Scher's area of
responsibility includes bilateral security relations with India
and all other South Asian countries, and also the Pacific
Island nations.
Tremendous history. He has worked for some 15 years with
the Departments of Defense and State and has held numerous
posts covering Asian security and defense policy.
Mr. Scher received his Bachelor of Arts degree from
Swarthmore College with high honors, and a Master of
International Relations from Columbia University's School of
International Public Affairs. He was awarded the DuPont
International Affairs fellowship.
And gentlemen, again, I really want to thank both of you
for taking the time from your busy schedules to testify before
this subcommittee. And I would like to now give you the
opportunity to make your statements. Secretary Yun.
STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH Y. YUN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE
Mr. Yun. Chairman Faleomavaega, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you put the mic closer to you so that
you can be heard better?
Mr. Yun. Thank you for holding this important hearing today
and asking me to testify on the situation in Papua. With your
permission, I would like to make brief remarks and submit a
longer statement for the record.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, both of the
gentlemen's statements will be made part of the record. And if
you have any extraneous materials you want to add to your
statements, it will be done.
Mr. Yun. Thank you. Developments in Papua are closely
monitored and followed by the Department of State, and these
represent an important aspect of our overall relations with
Indonesia. The United States recognizes and respects the
territorial integrity of Indonesia within its concurrent
borders and does not support or condone separatism in Papua or
in any other part of the country. At the same time, we strongly
support respect for universal human rights within Indonesia,
including the right of peaceful assembly, free expression of
political views and fair and non-discriminatory treatment of
ethnic Papuans within Indonesia.
Within this context we have consistently encouraged the
Indonesian Government to work with the indigenous Papuan
population to address their grievances, resolve conflicts
peacefully, and support development and good governance in the
Papuan provinces. The administration believes the full
implementation of the 2001 special autonomy law for Papua which
emerged as part of Indonesia's democratic transition, would
help resolve long-standing grievances. We continue to encourage
the Indonesian Government to work with Papuan authorities to
discuss ways to empower Papuans and further implement the
special autonomy provisions which grant greater authority to
Papuans to administer their own affairs.
Advancing human rights is one of our primary foreign policy
objectives, not only in Indonesia, but throughout the world. We
want to see the right of peaceful, free expression of political
views and freedom of association observed throughout the world,
including in Papua.
We monitor allegations of human rights violations in Papua
and West Papua and we report on them in our annual Country
Report on Human Rights. With the growth of democracy over the
past decade in Indonesia, there has been substantial
improvement in respect for human rights, although there remain
credible concerns about human rights violations. The
improvement includes Papua, although, as our annual reporting
has documented, there continues to be some credible allegations
of abuse. We regularly engage the Government of Indonesia on
the importance of respect for human rights by security forces,
and we continue to emphasize our strong support for an open and
transparent legal system to look into any claims of excessive
use of force.
It is critical that independent and objective observers
have unrestricted access to Papua in order to monitor
development. At present, Indonesian journalists, NGOs and
Indonesian citizens may travel freely to Papua and West Papua.
However, the Indonesian Government requires that foreign
journalists, NGOs, diplomats and parliamentarians obtain
permission to visit Papua. We continue to encourage the
Indonesian Government to give these groups, including the
International Committee of the Red Cross, full and unfettered
access to Papua and West Papua.
There are several factors which have contributed to
tensions in Papua. One is the demographic shifts. Migration
from other parts of Indonesia has increased the number of non-
Papuan residents to about 40 percent of the current population
in Papua and West Papua. The total population of both provinces
is 2.4 million, of which 900,000 are migrants. Past government-
sponsored transmigration programs which moved households from
more densely populated areas to less populated regions accounts
for part of the influx.
The majority of the population shift has resulted from
natural migration trends from Indonesia's large population
centers to Papua where there is relatively low population
density. Some Papuans have voiced concerns that the migrants
have interfered with their traditional ways of life, land
usage, and economic opportunities.
Another factor is lack of economic development. Although
the region is rich in natural resources, including gold,
copper, natural gas and timber, Papua lags behind other parts
of Indonesia in some key development indicators. Poverty is
widespread is Papua, and Papua has the lowest level of adult
literacy in Indonesia. The region also has a disproportionately
high number of HIV/AIDS cases compared to the rest of
Indonesia, and high rates of infant and maternal mortality.
Another factor I would like to mention is that the special
autonomy law of 2001 has not been fully implemented in Papua.
Implementation has been delayed due to lack of implementing
regulations. In addition, the provincial governments have
lacked the capacity to take on certain key responsibilities in
some central government ministries, and some central government
ministries have yet to cede their authorities. Although full
implementation of special autonomy has not yet been realized,
Indonesian Government officials point to increased funding to
Papua which has totaled 27 trillion rupiah, or approximately 3
billion U.S. dollars in the past 9 years. This is a higher per
capita than any other area in Indonesia.
In terms of U.S. assistance, the United States is working
in partnership with Government of Indonesia and the provincial
Government of Papua and West Papua to find ways to address the
key development challenges of Papua, including good governance,
health, education and environment protection. USAID conducts
various programs in Papua targeting economic growth, democratic
governance, health, environment and education. These programs
total $11.6 million, or 7 percent of the USAID's budget for
Indonesia for Fiscal Year 2010.
In addition to USAID programs, the Department of State also
brings Papuans to the U.S. for thematic engagement on issues
like resource distribution. Our Fulbright programs had over 22
grantees from Papua. We also partner with the private sector to
effectively leverage resources. For example, in public private
partnership, the Fulbright Freeport scholarship program has
funded 18 individuals from Papua to study in the United States.
Embassy Jakarta maintains a vigorous schedule of engagement
in Papua and West Papua, and U.S. mission officers routinely
travel to provinces. I understand that Ambassador Marciel, who
arrived at post recently, plans to travel to Papua in October.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that Papua plays an
important role in our sustained engagement with the Government
of Indonesia. While Indonesia's overall human rights situation
has improved along with the country's rapid democratic
development, we are concerned by allegations of human rights
violations in Papua and continuously monitor the situation
there. We urge increased dialogue between the central
government and Papuan leaders and the full implementation of
the special autonomy law. We will continue to provide
assistance to build a strong economic and social foundation in
Papua. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify
before you today. I am pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yun follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you Mr. Secretary. Secretary Scher.
STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT SCHER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA, ASIAN AND PACIFIC
SECURITY AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Mr. Scher. Thank you, Chairman Faleomavaega and members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before
you today to provide testimony on the Indonesian military's
activities in Papua and West Papua. This issue is important to
our relationship with Indonesia and one that we in the
Department of Defense pay close attention to. I look forward to
sustaining a dialogue with you on these and other important
issues concerning Indonesia.
As noted, I have submitted testimony for the record so will
simply summarize that testimony now. Also, as you noted, it is
important to see the situation in Papua and West Papua in the
context of our overall relationship with Indonesia. Indonesia
is a strategically important country to the United States for
several reasons. It is the fourth most populous country on the
planet. It is home to more Muslims than any other country in
the world, and stretches across key maritime transit routes
that connect the Middle East to East Asia.
Since the fall of Suharto more than 10 years ago, Indonesia
has also taken its place as the world's third largest
democracy. In that short time, Indonesia has made great
advancements in consolidating its democracy.
During the past decade, the Indonesian Armed Forces, or
TNI, have undertaken several critical institutional reforms to
help achieve Indonesia's goal of establishing greater respect
for human rights, accountability and civilian control over the
military. Among these reforms are formally removing the
military from political affairs, establishing a clear
delineation between the responsibilities of the civilian police
forces and the TNI, and enhancing the authority of the civilian
minister of defense.
While the United States has encouraged and applauds such
reforms, it is important to note that the Government of
Indonesia undertook them of its own volition. Indonesia's
civilian and military leadership are both deeply committed to
the goal of professionalization and continue to take
significant steps to ensure that TNI is a force that
understands the role of a responsible military in a democratic
system. The TNI has made great strides in institutionalizing
human rights training for its forces, but also knows that it
has further to go. Recent steps in this effort include the
inclusion of human rights seminars in military schooling,
working with respected international institutions, such as the
Norwegian Center for Human Rights and instituting refresher
training prior to deployments. Respect for human rights is now
a core feature of TNI doctrine, and all deployed soldiers are
required to carry a booklet explaining the proper treatment of
non combatants. Of course, the Department takes seriously any
allegations of human rights abuses committed by Indonesian
security forces no matter where they occur. When we hear of
specific abuse allegations, the United States Government
follows up on them through the appropriate State Department
channels.
We recognize that there have been allegations of human
rights abuses in Papua and West Papua. The Department of
Defense takes these allegations very seriously, as we believe
respect for human rights is a core mission of all responsible
security forces. However, we have not yet seen any evidence to
suggest that the incidents under discussion are part of a
deliberate or systematic campaign by the TNI or Government of
Indonesia. Moreover, the Government of Indonesia has stated
that there are no ongoing military combat operations in Papua
or West Papua.
While Indonesian security forces do not have a perfect
record over the past years, their reforms are continuing and
moving in the right direction. Earlier this year, the
Indonesian Defense Minister issued a public statement
addressing Indonesia's military's commitment to protecting
human rights, explaining that reforms are in place to prevent
future abuses, and expressing the TNIs commitment to holding
human rights violators accountable.
Secretary Gates was recently in Jakarta and said,
``My view is that, particularly if people are making an
effort to make progress, that recognizing that effort
and working with them further will produce greater
gains in human rights for people.''
Put in other words, DoD simply believes that it is
important to continue engagement with the TNI, in part, to
continue to emphasize the importance of these reforms and the
importance of continuing to make progress on these issues. We
make clear that respect for human rights is an essential
component of professional military behavior, and these issues
are raised in every formal meeting I have with my Indonesian
counterparts as recently as last week. Therefore, the
Department and the U.S. Government will continue to treat any
allegations of abuse with great seriousness. But together with
our State Department colleagues, we will continue to closely
monitor allegations of human rights abuses and work with the
TNI and Indonesian Ministry of Defense toward appropriate
investigation and accountability.
Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to
answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Scher follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very. Appreciate very much your
statements. And we do have some questions. Secretary Yun, as
you know, I met with President Megawati when she visited here
in Washington, DC, and I was very hopeful and very happy to
learn that the Indonesian Parliament had passed a law to
provide special autonomy for the West Papuans. In fact, she
even invited me to come to West Papua and to dialogue and to
meet with the government leaders there. Well, this was 2001.
And as I said in my statement earlier, this is one of the
concerns that I have because I felt that special autonomy was
the consensus among the Papuan leaders, and that just a sense
of some respectability as to their basic fundamental rights
allowed an opportunity for them to build their infrastructure,
better roads, hospitals, health care centers, whatever it is
that is needed.
And also, to establish a similar relationship as I recall
in my meeting with President SBY, he was very excited and very
happy with the fact that they were successful after 30 years of
negotiations with the Aceh situation and with the
implementation of a special autonomy law that was made for the
Aceh people. And he felt that perhaps a similar thing could
also be done for the people of West Papua. And I was very
excited about that.
Well, Mr. Secretary, this is 9 years later now. And as you
said, changes have been made in the special autonomy law. So I
am just curious. What do you see as the basis--is this the
current policy of the Indonesian Government to implement the
2001 special autonomy law? Are we in for another discussion or
dialogue in terms of what is to be done with the people of
Papua?
Mr. Yun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very much agree with you.
If the 2001 special autonomy law can be fully implemented, we
do believe that a lot of frustration currently felt by Papuans
will decrease. It has been slow in coming and I think even this
year, there have been a couple of incidents, Puncak Jaya is one
as well as others that we believe is caused by Papuans feeling
that special provisions such as cultural protection and special
positions. For example, there was strong demand that at bupati
level, which is the county chief level, that they should be
Papuans rather than migrants. I think those grievances are very
much felt, and if the Indonesian Government in Jakarta, the
central government, can speed up the implementation of special
autonomy law, a lot of those grievances will, I wouldn't say
disappear, but will be somewhat lessened.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is there a special agency or official,
specifically assigned by the President to address the issues of
West Papua and the current relationship? This is where I am a
little fuzzy. I understand that some minister of social welfare
or something was being assigned that task, but I am not sure if
that is true.
Mr. Yun. As you know, the discussions take place between
Papuan-elected officials. The two Governors in Papua are
elected and they are Papuans, as well as deputy governors. And
it is my understanding all of the mayors and the county chiefs
are also Papuans. As well, they also have a separate body which
represents the cultural protection as well as a consultative
side of Papuan society, and they are represented in Jakarta and
I understand that they travel to Jakarta to consult with the
Parliament there. And I am not quite sure who in Indonesia is
the point-person for making sure that special autonomy
legislation is fully implemented. I am not sure there is one
honestly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you provide for the record who this
is? Because I am at a loss myself in terms of understanding
what it is.
Mr. Yun. Yes, sir.
[The information referred to follows:]
Written Response Received from Mr. Joseph Y. Yun to Question Asked
During the Hearing by the Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega
The Ministry of Home Affairs is formally tasked with overseeing
Special Autonomy for Papua. The Office of the President takes an active
interest in Papua, as do a number of other ministries within the
Indonesian government.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know you mentioned in your statement
that it always has been the policy of our Government to respect
the territorial integrity of another country, no different than
Indonesia not telling the United States what to do in dealing
with Native Americans, for example. I am fully aware and
understand that situation. And it has been a little difficult
too in that sense. So we use that as the basis for saying that
we can't really do any more other than engage Indonesia if it
feels like talking to us or helping with the needs of the
Papuans. Otherwise, is there really anything more that that we
can do?
Mr. Yun. Last week, for example, we had, as you know, the
launch of a Joint Commission with Indonesia. And under this
Joint Commission, which was launched by Indonesian Foreign
Minister Natalegawa and Secretary Clinton, we did create six
working groups. And one of the working groups dealt with
democracy and civil society. And during those working group
meetings, we did have a discussion and those discussions
centered around how maybe we can get more access in Papua,
especially the international NGOs such as the International
Committee of the Red Cross.
And so I think our immediate task is really getting through
a dialogue, a serious dialogue with the Indonesian side so that
we make some progress and we discuss especially the allegations
of human rights that are out there. And I am sure the next
panel will discuss them. And because honestly, the U.S.
Government cannot send an investigation team, of course,
whenever there is an allegation, but we do want to discuss them
and see whether they are serious and consult with the
international community as well as civil society.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am very much aware of the fact that
sometimes issues where countries express their sovereignty,
that matters are considered internal matters, and is none of
the business of other countries trying to tell Indonesia what
to do, how they want to do things. And I just want to make the
record clear that this is not the intent of this hearing, nor
is it the intent of this hearing just to talk about human
rights violations. As I said, years ago, and I still firmly
believe, if we are trying to work together with the government
to implement the provisions of the special autonomy law,
because that was the consensus that I got years ago from the
Papuan community and their leaders, that they are willing to do
this.
But somehow, as you had stated, there just has not been a
plan put forward by Jakarta saying how exactly they will
implement the provisions of the special autonomy law. And I
think this is where we seem to have an impasse either because
of the difficulties or because they just don't feel like it.
I kind of like to hope in good faith and wish that the
Indonesian Government is really sincere. Let me say this for
the record, I sincerely believe that President SBY really wants
to reach out and help the people of Papua. I also fully
understand that he faces constraint. A lot of pressure is
coming from other sectors of the Indonesian community that puts
him in a very difficult situation, as you mentioned. So I am
very much aware of that. But I just want to note that, and
wanted to know in our administration, as we are advocating more
openness by the Indonesian Government, to see what is being
done to give assistance to the Papuan people. I have got a
couple more questions, but I want to give this opportunity to
my colleague from California for her line of questions.
Ms. Watson. I just want to follow up, Mr. Chairman.
In your observation of what is going on, and we recognize
the sovereignty, as has been mentioned, and what our role is,
but do you feel that the Papuans are under threat in their own
land? Does it seem like they are becoming a minority, or are
they already a minority in their own land? Your observations.
Mr. Yun. My observation is that they are not yet a
minority. I think the numbers show that it is at about 60/40 at
the moment; 60 Papuans, as opposed to 40 migrants. However,
clearly, if this trend continues, they will be a minority and
probably in quite a short amount of time.
I think that is one of the greatest frustrations among
Papuans, is the demographic shifts. The special autonomy law
does create some protection for Papuans, a lot of protection
for Papuans, and this is why it is important to implement those
laws.
Ms. Watson. Could the motivation be the wealth of natural
resources there in Indonesia?
Mr. Yun. I don't think it is necessarily. In my view, it is
not only about dividing the economic pie. I think there is a
lot more than that. There are cultural reasons, and, as the
chairman indicated, deep-rooted historical reasons.
In fact, I think, in terms of economic resources
transferred, as I mentioned in my testimony, it has been
substantial. But it is also about the capacity to use those
economic resources, and I think it is also about the political
position each group will hold.
So I think the growing frustration--I mean, we do have a
trend, I believe, where in fact, as Bob mentioned here, there
has been less and less human rights violation incidents.
However, that hasn't been accompanied by Papuans themselves
feeling less frustrated. So we do have those two trends, which
are somewhat contradictory. And I think it has to do with
migration, with the economy in comparison with the rest of
Indonesia falling behind.
So, it is a complicated story. And frustration is also felt
in Jakarta by the Indonesians, and I am sure Chairman
Faleomavaega has heard that, which is they have given them at
least what they thought was a lot of leeway. They are governed
by Papuans. The two Governors--they have considerable power--
are Papuans. The deputy governors are Papuans. The county
chiefs and mayors are Papuans. Yet it doesn't seem to have
resolved the basic underlying grievance.
Ms. Watson. I was wondering how involved will the U.N. be
if the conditions continue as they are now?
Mr. Scher, maybe you want to comment?
Mr. Scher. You can go ahead.
Mr. Yun. Thank you, Bob.
It is very much an internal issue, and I am sure we all
appreciate that. It is an internal issue. It is a domestic
political issue. But having said that, of course, we do,
everyone, the international community has an interest in good
governance, in meeting the commitment of Indonesia toward the
international community.
And I would say that we have stressed this over and over
again: There has been a democratic transition in Indonesia,
President SBY has been reelected by an enormous majority, and
there is a strong civil society in Indonesia, as well as a
healthy Parliament. So it is really for them to work this
through.
And I think, obviously, you know, the U.N. can help as well
as international organizations. I am sure you will see in the
next panel, you know, for example, we do have Human Rights
Watch, who have personnel out there in Jakarta, especially, and
they will give us a good report on what is going on.
So in this day where communication is quick, we are going
to learn and we are going to know what is going on. So however
basically it is a domestic Indonesian issue, and I do believe,
given the democratic transition, we will make improvements.
Ms. Watson. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
Secretary Yun, you mentioned that one cause of the delays
in giving provincial governments the opportunity to develop was
the fact that for a 9-year period, Jakarta gave some 3 billion
U.S. dollars as part of the infrastructure development, which
is high on a per capita basis compared to other provinces. And
so other provinces within Indonesia express disappointment over
why West Papua was given all that money. Well, it also happens
to be that the largest corporate taxpayer to Jakarta is the
American Freeport Gold Mining Operation, which operates right
now in West Papua. So, by all means, all the mineral resources
coming from West Papua, I think it right that they should be
getting some of that money back since these are their
resources.
But I do want to give credit where credit is due, there is
no question. The last time I met President Suharto, he was very
ill, and on the eve of finally giving up his presidency.
Elections were then conducted, and I do believe in giving
credit where credit is due. Indonesia has come a long way.
The two national elections of President SBY have
demonstrated that a major Muslim country is committed to
democracy and the principle of the ballot box in determining
leadership. I am very much aware of that.
But at the same time, I do want to say that maybe we are
not doing enough to give assistance to Indonesia, or is it
because of the problems internally within Indonesia that has
made the process very slow in implementing the autonomy act? My
point is, if it was possible to implement the special autonomy
for Aceh, why couldn't they do the same for West Papua? Is it
the language? Culture? There are no ethnic ties, nationality,
culturally, between the Javanese people of Indonesia with those
of Papua. I think that is a bare fact that we have to admit.
But I am curious and wanted to know from both of you, what
is the administration's position in terms of dealing with West
Papua? We can all talk about, Oh, we sent a cablegram. We have
talked to the people there, our counterparts through our U.S.
Embassy, and all of that.
Mr. Secretary, it has been 9 years and I am still waiting.
Some say, ``Well, why are you in a rush, Eni?'' You know, it
has been going on now for 60 years, and there is still not much
opening in terms of giving the people of West Papua their basic
fundamental rights. I think that is basically in my discussions
with the leaders of Papua; just treat us with decency. Give us
the right to pursue--and at the same time be part of the
overall bigger picture in terms of their involvement in being
made part of the national government in Jakarta.
So that is basically what we are trying to pursue here. I
wanted to ask Secretary Scher a little question here. Where do
our strategic and military interests come into play in dealing
with Indonesia?
Mr. Scher. We see the strategic and military interest as
part of the broader picture of interests of Indonesia. It is
difficult I think to divide all of them. I obviously spoke
about some of the broader interests that we have in strategic
interests.
But as a very important part, we play a supporting role in
the Department of Defense for the overall foreign policy, and
so we use the tools we have at our disposal to help build
further U.S. policy to serve our interests and help build
partner capacity in countries that share common interests.
So I am not one to be able to say how we rank different
pieces, but it is obviously a very important piece, and it is
one that we think we bring valuable tools to achieve our
overall U.S. objectives and goals.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Secretary Yun, you indicated that
journalists do travel freely to Papua and West Papua. I want to
share my own experience. I was supposed to go there for 3 days,
and I ended up with 2 hours and 10 minutes.
Mr. Yun. I am sorry, sir, I think that has to be corrected.
I said Indonesians can travel freely to Papua, Indonesian
journalists and others. But foreign journalists, diplomats and
overseas civil society, NGOs, they have to get permission
before they can travel to Papua.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I think the question now before us
is, where do we go from here? It is my understanding that there
have been some rumblings in some of the sectors of the Papuan
community that special autonomy has failed and they want
something else. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Yun. Yes, sir.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you believe that our policies should
include continuing to work with Indonesia in implementing
special autonomy?
Mr. Yun. Yes, I believe that. I think we need to continue
to work with the Indonesian Government and work with the
international community. I think those two are crucial. The
Indonesian Government, I believe, as it has happened over the
past decade, as civil society and as democracy takes even
firmer root, I do think there will be a tendency, an increasing
tendency, to look at Papua as what it is, which is part of
Indonesia, and work toward that, taking into account Papuan
culture, history.
A lot of issues that have been disappointing have to do
with lack of implementation of the special autonomy law rather
than the special autonomy law itself.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In our own experience in dealing with
colonialism, we fought against the most powerful country in the
world at that time during the Revolution, and we defeated the
mighty British Empire.
As a matter of principle, as we all know, Indonesia was a
colony of the Dutch and so was West Papua. And when Indonesia
became independent, West Papua was made part of Indonesia,
when, in fact, culturally, historically, in every way, there is
just no connection whatsoever between the Papuan people and the
Indonesian people.
So how do we balance it? How do we say that it is okay that
Papua, a former colony, is taken over by another former colony?
Justifies the fact that a better consideration be given to the
Papuan people than just simply say, You are part of Indonesia,
no ifs, ands or buts, and that is it.
Mr. Yun. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether that was a
question. I mean, I would fully agree with you; history is full
of oddities. And for us now to go back and correct that is not
a possible task. We are what we have today, and we have to work
with what we have today, and this is the reality.
I do sympathize that there is tremendous ethnic-cultural
division in these areas, let alone in Papua, within Indonesia
itself.
So we do have to recognize the integrity of Indonesia, its
territorial integrity, but that does not mean that we should
ignore history. But, at the same time, we cannot correct
history.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, with all due respect, Mr.
Secretary, South Africa comes to my mind, that apartheid was
practiced in the worst way. Black people who held the majority
in population of South Africa were treated almost like animals,
as far as I am concerned. And year after year after year, even
pleading with the European countries and even with our own
Government, as a matter of principle, is it right that
apartheid was practiced the way it was done in South Africa,
where thousands and thousands of people were killed? There is
no question there was bloodshed.
So you are saying it is okay to disregard the past, just as
it was in the struggles of Mr. Nelson Mandela and other Black
leaders dealing with the South African apartheid issue, where
there was a lot of resistance.
As a matter of principle, is it proper for Black people,
who were the vast majority in the country, to be treated as
less than human, with all the civil rights and everything not
even part of it? But history then kind of put itself forward in
saying it is not right.
What I am suggesting here, and I am not trying to plead
that Indonesia work now toward granting independence for Papua.
What I am asking is, are they giving proper treatment? Are they
respecting the right of the Papuan people to be part of the
national government and all of that?
Do you feel that change will be forthcoming, or are we just
going to continue another 10 years, as I have been waiting for
the last 9 years for special autonomy and nothing happened?
Mr. Yun. Mr. Chairman, I do agree with you that tremendous
improvements can be made in the situation in Papua, but I don't
think I would agree that the situation in Papua in any way
resembles the situation in South Africa during the height of
apartheid. I don't think I would agree to that.
Am I optimistic that the situation will be improving or
continue to improve? I think that depends on the route of
democracy and whether freely elected governments and all the
institutions that go with such governments, such as law and
order and accountability and parliamentary democracy and also
accountability of regional governments. If they can go
together, then I am very optimistic that the situation in Papua
will improve.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Secretary Scher?
Mr. Scher. Certainly, I defer to Deputy Assistant Yun.
I would just say I think it is a constant--it is a struggle
for much of the Government of Indonesia deal with the wide
range of heterogeneous populations that exist within the
incredibly large archipelago, and certainly, they are doing it
better in some places than others. And clearly West Papua and
Papua I think is a place where there is need for improvement in
how they are addressing this.
But I do think that it is worthwhile to note that the
success of this experiment, of being able to include a wide
variety of different ethnic, linguistic groups into a country,
is one that we have done very well with here in the United
States, and I think that we should realize and hope and support
any country that is trying to do the same thing under the
democratic system that we see within Indonesia.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, gentleman, I deeply appreciate your
statements and the dialogue. Do you have any further statements
you want to add for the record?
Mr. Yun. No.
Mr. Scher. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
coming.
For our next panel of witnesses, we need to set up the
table there, if we could have our friends that are going to be
testifying here. For our panel of witnesses we have this
afternoon, I want to introduce our distinguished witnesses for
the record.
At my extreme left is Dr. Pieter Drooglever, who has a
doctorate from Utrecht University in history. His doctoral
dissertation explored the internal politics of the Dutch East
Indies in the 1930s. As a staff member of the Institute of
Netherlands History from 1969 until 2006, his main project was
editing a 21-volume collection of source materials on Dutch-
Indonesian relations from 1945-1963. This project was completed
at the time of his retirement 4 years ago.
He also wrote a series of articles and other books on
related subjects. His final study, his book on the Act of Free
Choice in West Papua, was published in English last year, and
it is expected the Indonesian language version will be coming
out this year. He served on the board of several key
institutions and committees promoting the study of Indonesia
and the Netherlands. He also is a professor of history at
Radboud University in Nijmegen. I hope I pronounced that
correctly.
Our next witness, oh, boy, they got the sequence mixed up
here. We will work on Mr. Mote's bio. It is not here.
Our next witness will be Mr. Henkie Rumbewas. He worked
with the United Nations in East Timor to investigate human
rights abuses during the period of Indonesian administration.
He is a refugee from Biak in the Papua province who witnessed
the detention and torture of his father during the 1969 Act of
Free Choice. Mr. Rumbewas is an Australian citizen who travels
freely with delegations from Australian Protestant churches to
his home to do humanitarian and educational work in rural
areas.
Mr. Nicholas Messet is here with us also. He has been the
director of human resource development and general affairs for
Sarmi Papua Asia Oil for 2 years now. He is deputy chairman of
the Independent Group Supporting Special Autonomous Regions
with the Republic of Indonesia Foundation in Jakarta and has
been assistant moderator in the Papua Council Presidium for 10
years now. He is a pilot with Islands Nation Air in Port
Moresby, as well as in Bougainville, Buka, Vanimo and Kimbe,
Papua New Guinea. He is also a pilot with Air Vanuatu. He is a
pilot with Air Niugini. He worked as a flying instructor for
the Nation Aviation Space Academy. He worked with the
Australian Broadcasting Commission and with the Public Works
Department in Port Morseby.
On his educational background, he trained with Piedmont in
Greensborough, North Carolina, and Pan Am in Miami, Florida,
for wide-body aircraft, B727s and 737s. Since 1988, he trained
with American Flyers in Santa Monica. He trained with Nation
Air Cooperation. He has a very distinguished record as a pilot
and aviator for that reason. As a member of the foundation
team, he witnessed Mr. Nicholas Jouwe reinstated as a full-
fledged citizen of the Republic of Indonesia by Minister for
Justice and Human Rights, His Excellency Patrialis Akbar, and
the Minister Coordinating for Social Services.
Mr. Messet has been a member of several delegations
traveling all over the world, the United Nations, even here in
the United States. Five years ago, he returned voluntarily to
Indonesia after living in exile for some 36 years. As a result,
he is now a full fledged citizen and a strong advocate of
special autonomy status for the people of Papua. He is fluent
in the Bahasa Indonesian, Dutch, English and Swedish languages.
Boy, that is quite a deal there, Mr. Messet.
Octovianus Mote did his undergraduate studies in the Social
and Political Science Faculty of Parahyangan Catholic
University in Bandung, Indonesia. He began working as a
journalist for Kompas, a leading daily newspaper of Indonesia,
in 1988. From 1998-2001, he was bureau chief of Kompas for West
Papua. He led a historic team of 100 to meet with President
Habibie.
Mr. Mote obtained political asylum in the United States
following death threats. He is now visiting fellow at the
Cornell University Southeast Asian Program and the Genocide
Studies Center of Yale University.
Mr. Salmon Mauritz Yumame is a retired executive of Telkom,
the Indonesian Government communications company. He is
chairman of the Democratic Forum. He has been involved in a
dialogue with the Governor's office and the Indonesian
Department of Interior over the implementation of special
autonomy.
In June and July of this year, some 20,000 people took to
the streets in demonstrations against FORDEM's call to return
the special autonomy law to the Indonesian Government.
Eben Kirksey is a visiting assistant professor at the CUNY
Graduate Center in New York. In 1998, he was an exchange
student at Cenderawasih University, where he witnessed the
shooting of fellow students and a subsequent massacre in Biak.
He earned his B.A. in anthropology and biology from New College
of Florida. As a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford,
he studied Indonesian state violence in the Provinces of Papua
and West Papua. After earning his master's in philosophy from
Oxford University, he completed his doctoral program at the
University of California at Santa Cruz. It is expected that he
will be publishing a book concerning the issue.
Ms. Sophie Richardson is the acting director of Human
Rights Watch, Asia division, and oversees the organizations'
work on China. A graduate of the University of Virginia and
Oberlin College, Dr. Richardson is the author of numerous
articles on domestic Chinese political reform, and on
democratization and human rights in Cambodia, China, Hong Kong
and the Philippines. She has testified before European
Parliaments and the U.S. Senate and the House of
Representatives. She has provided commentary to the BBC, CNN,
Far Eastern Economic Review, Foreign Policy, and a whole host
of other organizations.
Did I miss anybody? I think we pretty much covered our
bases.
I would like at this time for Dr. Drooglever to give his
testimony.
Again, without objection, all your statements will be made
part of the record. If you have any additional materials that
you want to add on to be made part of the record, yes, do so.
Also, because of the number of witnesses that we have, if
you could please be concise and limit your statements to 5
minutes. So give us the meat. Don't go all over the world and
go to the moon and then come back and miss the point. Give us
the meat of your statements. As I said, your statements will be
fully made part of the record.
Again, I want to thank all of you, especially those of you
who have traveled all the way from Indonesia to come and
testify before this subcommittee.
As I said earlier, I am not aware that in the history of
Congress, either in the Senate or in the House, that an
oversight hearing has ever been held concerning West Papua. So,
consider yourselves pioneers.
As to what direction this hearing is going to take us in
the future, I want to assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that my
purpose in this hearing is not to point fingers and say any
disparaging things to embarrass the Government of Indonesia.
But it would be very helpful for my colleagues and for the
American public to know more about your people and understand
that some 2.2 million people live in Papuan and West Papua, and
we do take an interest.
Someone once said that here in America, there is, after
all, one race, and that is the human race. I think if we
understand that in terms of the principles involved here, we
will, I think, elevate this issue and hopefully something good
will come as a result of this hearing.
Professor Drooglever. I might also add before he begins his
statement, this is a copy of the book that Professor Drooglever
gave me, almost 700 pages. I spent all last night reading the
book, Professor Drooglever. To my knowledge, this is probably
the most comprehensive work ever done on the history of the
situation in Papua and on Indonesian, U.S. and U.N.
involvement.
I am making a plug here for him. Buy the book.
What is interesting about this is that he was assigned by
the Dutch Parliament, if I remember correctly, to do a study
about West Papua under condition that he be given absolute
access and freedom to do the research in the archives and
documents and everything, for which it was promised and it was
given, the archives here in the United States, Great Britain,
France, Netherlands but not, unfortunately, Indonesia. But
hopefully maybe one day you will be given access to do a study
there, too.
So I just want to say I was very, very impressed, Professor
Drooglever, with this scholarly work that you have done. Five
years is a long time. I don't think I could ever write a book
taking that long, taking 5 years to meticulously document and
put everything in mind in terms of explaining to the public,
scholars and to everybody, for that matter, what happened.
So, Pieter, please, proceed.
Mr. Drooglever. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have given an
excellent example, and I hope many will follow.
Well, the book then, ``The Act of Free Choice,
Decolonization and the Right to Self-Determination in Papua,''
that is the subject. That book gives----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Can you put the microphone closer to you?
I know you have a very strong accent.
Mr. Drooglever. Thank you. Yes, I will do my best.
Mr. Faleomavaega. You know, we Americans, we have a very
difficult time in speaking. I am still learning how to speak
English, by the way, so forgive me for this.
I know you tend to speak very fast, but please help me. Go
at about 50 miles an hour, and I think I can grasp it. Thank
you.
STATEMENT OF PIETER DROOGLEVER, PH.D., PROFESSOR EMERITUS,
INSTITUTE OF NETHERLANDS HISTORY
Mr. Drooglever. The book gives an overall picture of the
history of West Papua, a territory that was only brought under
effective rule of the Netherlands in the 20th century. The
focus of the book is on the post-war history of the territory.
It explores Papua's exclusion from the transfer of
sovereignty to Indonesia in 1949, the subsequent conflict with
Indonesia, and origins of the New York Agreement signed in
1962.
The parties to this agreement decided to hand over the
territory to Indonesia through the intermediary of a temporary
U.N. administration. That New York Agreement stipulated that
after a period of Indonesian rule, there would be a plebiscite
for the Papuans in which they would be able to choose between
permanent integration within the Indonesian state or not. That
plebiscite, called the Act of Free Choice, had to be organized
by Indonesia under the terms put down in the New York Agreement
and carried out under supervision of the United Nations.
It took place in 1969, and it resulted in a unanimous vote
in favor of permanent inclusion in Indonesia. None of the
United Nations observers present in the field nor observers
from abroad believed the results. The evidence brought forward
in my book allows for no other conclusion then that the outcome
was in no way representative of the real feelings of the
population. Under the eyes of the United Nations, the Act of
Free Choice perpetuated an era of repression and deprivation
for the Papuans that essentially continues until the present
day.
In this story, a few points are relevant for the hearing
today. One, the final period of Dutch administration between
1950 and 1962 was a belated effort in preparing the Papuans for
self-determination. It led to the creation of a small but
rapidly expanding young Papuan elite who entered the
administration and educational system in increasing numbers.
They developed a communal feeling and a nationalism of
their own. Political life sprang up, and a national committee
decided for a flag and an anthem for the Papuans. Upon
instigation of the Dutch, plans were developed for self-
determination in or around 1970. For the Papuan elite, the
entrance of the Indonesians shortly afterwards, after the
conclusion of the New York Agreement, was a certain shock which
made an end to their dreams of future independence. The Papuans
felt like they had been betrayed by the world.
Two: The New York Agreement was brought about under
pressure from the United States. At the end of the Eisenhower
administration, The State Department drafted a document that
later was to form the basis of the New York Agreement.
U.S. officials first proposed the idea of a new and interim
administration before transfer to Indonesia. Following pressure
from the Dutch, some paragraphs of self-determination were
added in, but these were weakly worded as a result of
Indonesian counter pressure. So, the foundations for the
enactment Act of Free Choice were already laid down in
agreement itself.
In 1962, when the New York Agreement was formulated, the
Indonesians were in a position to put strong pressure upon the
Dutch. The Republic of Indonesia had assembled in the space of
a few years an impressive invading force. They had advanced
weaponry, ships and airplanes that had been supplied both by
the Americans and the Russians.
Earlier U.S. promises of military support for the Dutch in
case of an Indonesian attack were played down gradually during
the negotiations. The Dutch were confronted with a war that
would have to be fought without American support.
Moreover, in the Netherlands itself, a longing for better
relations with Indonesia, its former and dearest colony, was
growing stronger. This mixture of circumstances and arguments
and sentiments forced the Dutch Government to give in.
Then the fourth point. Under these conditions, the role of
the military in the Indonesian victory of 1962 was undeniable
and conspicuous. Indonesian soldiers were well aware of this.
When given access to New Guinea, as it was called that still,
in October 1962, they took possession of the territory in a
spirit of victorious occupational army. The Dutch slipped out
under U.N. protection, and for them, that was an advantage
indeed. But the Papuans had to cope with the soldiers and
accompanying officials.
From the beginning, the Indonesian army was the prime force
in the administration of the territory. It was carried out in a
very rough-handed way, with hardly any appreciation for the
special character of the Papuan worlds.
For most Indonesians, West Papua was a place of banishment.
Yet, in the beginning at least, they enjoyed taking over a
comfortable colonial administration. The typewriters, the
hospital equipment and all the elements of the basic
infrastructure were taken away. Jobs of the Papuan elite were
taken over, the educational system graded down, and the civil
society of West Papua slipped down the road toward greater
misery.
After General Suharto became President of Indonesia, the
new minister of foreign affairs, Adam Malik, visited the
territory. Malik was shocked by the desolation he found there.
The Javanese civil servants had robbed the country blind.
Embitterment reigned everywhere, in his own words.
Malik promised improvement, but in effect, his government
brought increasing military oppression. The first operations of
the Papuan resistance had already started in 1965, and were
countered by Indonesian soldiers with maximum violence. The
number of victims is hard to determine, in large part due to
lack of access to the territory by foreign observers.
Altogether, the casualties ran into the thousands already
by 1969. By most estimations, the violence increased until
April 1985, and then slowed down afterwards; yet it is still a
harshly governed territory, but this is outside the scope of my
book. That is for my neighbors.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Drooglever follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, professor.
Mr. Mote, for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MR. OCTOVIANUS MOTE, FOUNDER, WEST PAPUA ACTION
NETWORK, PRESIDENT, PAPUA RESOURCE CENTER
Mr. Mote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this historical
testimony for us. On behalf of my nation, I would like to say
thank you.
Let me start by making a statement that the special
autonomy in West Papua has failed. This was the conclusion
drawn not by just a particular group that fights for
independence, but the Papua Customary Council, and then the
Papua Presidium Council. The Governor of West Papua also
assigned a local university to evaluate the autonomy. The
conclusions are the same as the aspirations of these people.
Recently, the same university organized a seminar in the
University of Indonesia and also tried to explain that this
special autonomy has failed and tried to get support from other
universities in Indonesia to raise that concern.
As a background, Congressman, when this autonomy was raised
I was in Papua as the bureau chief of Kompas Daily, the biggest
newspaper.
The dictatorship of President Suharto, who ruled Indonesia
for 32 years, came to an end in 1998 amidst a widely popular
reform movement that swept this island nation. The era of
comparative freedom that came with the end of Suharto's rule
opened new political opportunities for the people of West
Papua, as well as Timor and Aceh.
Nationalist movements developed grassroots support in each
of these territories. Public demonstrations in Papua, which
featured the flying of the Morning Star flag, were staged
throughout the territory in 1998.
A delegation of 100 Papuan leaders met with President
Habibie. I was appointed by the Government of Indonesia to
facilitate that meeting. In the palace, on October 25th, 1999,
people expressed their experience under Indonesian control, and
then they said, ``Let us go to maintain ourself.''
Right after that meeting, Mr. Chairman, I was accused by
the Government of Indonesia, and I was put on a travel ban to
abroad. Luckily, at that moment, I was invited by the U.S.
Government. I traveled to the U.S. and then I received
political asylum in this country.
Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of aspects of progress
that we can admit that happened under special autonomy, which
is the funding, for instance, the amount of money that was just
mentioned. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the Governor
of West Papua admitted that more than 80 percent of that
funding is going for the government for salary and to build new
regencies that the Government of Indonesia is extending right
now.
When I was there as a journalist, Mr. Chairman, it was just
nine regencies. Right now, we have 30 new regencies, and all
this money is going for the new construction for the public
servants that come to the regencies. This is one of the
threats, Mr. Chairman, about the Papuans, that we feel we will
extinct even faster than what we were thinking of before.
Another point I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is about
the security in West Papua. On the proposal that the West
Papuans, the people that are preparing this special autonomy,
they tried to put the security under the Governor's control,
but it was cut out, and it stated that ``no civilian authority
can control the military.'' And right now, Mr. Chairman, the
number of the troops is extending more and more.
Under Indonesian law, each and every regency is allowed to
form a new district for the military. So it is just a matter of
time that the military will extend more and more troops under
Indonesian law. So, so far, the military are the same. There is
nothing changed in the military's attitudes in West Papua.
The Papuan people right now, they reject this special
autonomy, Mr. Congressman, basically not just because they
don't get any education, the economic and the welfare issue,
but really because they see that they are really about to
extend. And they can see in almost all of the big cities in
West Papua, Mr. Congressman, the population is 60 percent
settlers and 40 percent are Papuans. So we still have the West
Papuan population in remote areas, but in the cities, already
we are a minority, Mr. Congressman.
A couple of years ago, at Yale University, where I am part
of a seminar, a professor right there explained when he visited
West Papua, in order to recognize the situation in West Papua,
you don't have to study a long time. You just sit in the
market, and you will see how the new colonization is taking
place in West Papua.
Therefore, Congressman, Papuans have lost faith in the will
of the Indonesian Government to resolve longstanding
differences; autocratic rule by the distant official in
Jakarta, security forces that continue to operate with
impunity, as well as laws that limit basic political and
religious freedoms.
The Papuan Traditional Council, they wants ``our'' Papua.
It is a political organization representing 250 indigenous West
Papuans that have recently reiterated the call for the dialogue
between the Republic of Indonesia and the Papuan people. Such a
dialogue would only be possible, according to the Papuan
tradition and culture, which we have the chairman of the Papuan
customary council, right there. That dialogue should be taking
place with the international community as a neutral third
party.
Last, just this week, Mr. President SBY stated that he
rejects the special--the dialogue with the Papuans. This is
what we see as Papuans as a discrimination policy, because the
same President is willing to dialogue with the Acehnese, but
why he reject us?
Mr. Chairman, therefore, we would like to thank you for
your recent letter to President Obama encouraging him to make
West Papua one of the highest priorities of the administration.
We also thank you, to the other 50 Members of the U.S.
Congress who signed this letter asking the President to meet
with the people of West Papua during his upcoming trip to
Indonesia. We sincerely hope that the President will take your
request to heart.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mote follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
We are joined this afternoon by one of our distinguished
colleagues and senior members of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
my good friend, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee from the great
State of Texas. I would like to give her this opportunity for
an opening statement, if she has one.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. I
think it will be important for the witnesses to know that the
chairman was kind enough to make this an open meeting for
members of the full committee that may not be on the
subcommittee. Forgive me for not being here at the start of the
hearing, and I may not be able to stay.
But I wanted the chairman to know that I consider this of
such importance that beyond the letter that we have written, I
would like to join him in whatever his leadership chooses to
pursue, i.e., an additional letter, as we begin to approach
2011, to encourage the President to meet on this very important
issue regarding West Papua and the people, the indigenous
people of that area.
My remarks speak to the largeness of human rights. I am
sympathetic and very knowledgeable of the important role that
Indonesia plays as a democratic Islamic nation, the largest
Muslim Nation, the importance of that. We should not take away
from that.
But I believe that human life and dignity must also stand
up against or stand alongside comprehensive peace agreements or
alliances where we are trying to bolster the relationship
between an Islamic nation and the United States.
Frankly, I believe that the United States in its government
today probably has less to apologize for as relates to the
Muslim world. We have extended our hand of friendship. I
believe I am a friend of the Muslim world. I don't believe we
hold to discrimination, despite the diversity in our country
that raises their voices sometimes. So I think we are on good
ground.
But if there is anything that we have the moral high ground
to stand on, including our own internal assessment of our own
beliefs, is the question of human rights and the indigenous
rights or the rights of people to be sovereign or at least to
be respected.
I know there are separatists who become frustrated and
don't believe that there is a serious commitment to recognizing
the people. I am particularly concerned because of the pending
visit of our President focused around the relationship between
Indonesia and the United States.
So I really came to add my support to the leadership of
this very fine chairman, who has brought enormously important
issues on indigenous people who may not feel they have been
heard.
We cannot, and I would pose a question for the record, Mr.
Chairman, and I know we are not in the questioning timeframe at
this point, but I think it is important that Mr. Joseph Yun,
who I believe is here and is deputy assistant to the East Asian
and Pacific Affairs, and I am not seeing his name, but maybe I
am ignoring it.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentlelady yield? He did testify
earlier this afternoon, and I will be more than glad to forward
whatever list of questions you might have for him to respond to
us for the record. We would be happy to do that.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Then I will articulate the
question. I don't think the Congress should have to wait until
the night before the President's visit to get a firm response
as to whether or not this issue will be an agenda item as he
goes to meet with the leadership in Indonesia. I.
Know this very fine chairman probably probed Mr. Yun,
Secretary Yun, with that same question. I am not sure how
detailed the answer may have been.
But this is so important. Indonesia is so distant that we
should not lose the opportunity to have a very serious
discussion that involves human rights. Frankly, I believe that
as we engage with the Muslim world, as we continue to emphasize
that Islam is a faith, as other faiths are, a faith of
nonviolence, a faith of charity and love, we can do that and
work to establish relationships with Indonesia as we ask the
hard questions about what you are doing about the indigenous
people who are still asking for their rights as well.
This is a difficult challenge because, Mr. Chairman, I
would wonder whether or not we would be able to assess that we
had the people from this region as our neighbor. When I say
that, someone would say, oh, yes, there is a family down the
street. Maybe there is. But it probably is not as much on the
minds of Americans as it should be. It is the responsibility of
the United States Congress to do it.
Let me conclude, because of the chairman's indulgence, to
be able to just emphasize the issues that I have read in this
memo. I am tempted and will put on the record that it is
alleged that potentially this population, West Papua, has
suffered great injustices and a deprivation at the hand of
Indonesia, where may some have described it as genocide.
We were afraid of that word with Sudan. We ran away from
that word with Sudan. We ran away because we were sensitive to
wanting to create relationships and continue dialogues. I want
to create relationships. I want to continue dialogue. But Mr.
Chairman, I am not willing to create relationships and continue
dialogue over the dead bodies or the loss of life of a
population of people.
I did say this is my last comment, but I am reminded of the
collaboration of so many Americans, including you, Mr.
Chairman, being a leader during the tsunami, when many rushed
to Indonesia and that region, Sri Lanka and other places,
because we cared about the loss of human life and we wanted to
be there to aid our friends.
We just simply ask now that Indonesia, as a pending friend
and as a friend, join us in answering the questions about the
military operations and the denial of human rights and the
potential of a terrible act that may be called genocide.
And to our President, who I know holds a moral high ground
on human rights, we are asking that these discussions be
carried on in any visit by the President of the United States
to Indonesia as we look forward to cementing our partnership
and as well recognizing the rights of all people.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to provide an
opening statement. With that, I yield.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentlelady for her most
eloquent statement and deep insights in terms of the issues
confronting the people of West Papua, as well as our ongoing
relationship with the leaders in the Republic of Indonesia.
There is no question that the issue poses a lot of
challenges and a tremendous amount of problems affecting the
lives and the welfare of the people of West Papua. And it is my
sincere hope that this hearing is an indicator of the interest
of Members of Congress. I want to make sure that we will
continue this dialogue and want to work very closely with the
leaders of Indonesia to see what we can do to give proper
assistance to the needs of our Papuan brothers and sisters.
With that, I thank the gentlelady for her statement. She is
welcome to ask any questions.
We just got through with two witnesses testifying, so at
this time, I would like to ask Mr. Rumbewas for his statement,
please.
STATEMENT OF MR. HENKIE RUMBEWAS, INTERNATIONAL ADVOCATE,
AUSTRALIA WEST PAPUA ASSOCIATION (AWPA)
Mr. Rumbewas. Well, allow me to extend my greetings and
gratitude from the people of West Papua. We are indigenous
people from Koya, from the people of the mountains, and Jow
Suba from my people, and Achemo from the head of the birds, to
you, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Donald Payne, and to all Members
of the United States Congress who have supported West Papua.
With my whole heart, I traveled all the way from West Papua,
although I have been living in exile in Australia at the
moment. But the last 6 years, I have been teaching English, and
I have been witnessing so much.
Today I would like to say this, as follows: We owe
particular gratitude to the 50 Members of Congress who signed a
recent letter about West Papua to the President of the United
States, Mr. Barack Obama.
I will start with myself. I was born on September 27, 1956,
on the island of Biak, where in the Second World War where the
American base, where more than 12,000 American, Japanese were
massacred. I was only 7 years old when the Indonesian military
invaded West Papua in 1962. My father was a health worker at
the local hospital during the Dutch administration. In the
middle of night, my father was taken by the Armed Forces and
sent to prison with many other West Papuans on the island of
Biak. This was the first nightmare that I experienced in my
life that I bring with me.
My father was sent to jail simply because he rejected the
Dutch Government also. We have to an independent state of
Melanesian people, and he also rejected the Indonesian
military, so both the Dutch and Indonesian rule. So from 1963
up to 1970, I did not live with my father, and my mother
brought us all up. So those are the emotions I brought with me.
But it is funny that a year after the Free Act of ``No
Choice,'' which is 1970, then my father was released.
Other experience I had, in 1967, one of my close uncles,
Permenas Awom, looking at the failure that we could not win the
possibilities of maintaining our land since the Dutch left, he
started an armed struggle in Manokwari. Permenas was later
persuaded by Suharto's military government. The Indonesian
military took him, and he disappeared, and until today, we
question whereabouts he was.
In 1969, a younger brother of my uncle Permenas Awom, which
is Nataniel Awom, was very disappointed with the death of his
brother Permenas, so he also started an armed struggle in Biak.
He was also persuaded and surrendered peacefully, but then
disappeared without any trace. The two uncles that I mentioned
above are just the examples of many other West Papuans who
disappeared without any trace.
Between 1964 and 1967, a cousin and a close friend of
mine--you might have seen how well I danced this afternoon--
because Arnold Ap, a fellow Papuan who was studying, my Sunday
school teacher, he was only promoting our culture and our
language. But the Indonesians saw it as a sign that we maintain
our Black culture. He was assassinated, burned to death, and
the body was thrown with other West Papuans along the beach in
the middle of the town of Jayapura.
These are the examples I am looking at. So since the death
of my cousin, and a good friend of mine, and the cousin of
Arnold Ap, the Catholic Church came to Papua while I was doing
my English training, teaching and talking about East Timor.
I am very glad that this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, you
mentioned about Mr. Mandela in South Africa, but a clearest
example is that the Democratic leader Mr. Clinton--Mr. Clinton
look at the case of East Timor, and America supported the
independence of East Timor. How come, how come the Government
of the United States could not look at the case of West Papua
from the same perpetrator, which is the Indonesian Government?
To the future of West Papuan refugees, I, myself, since
1984, I decided that I would like to make Australia a second
home. I am very proud that my Australian friends from the
Catholic Church took me and sponsored me to go to Australia.
But whenever I return to Papua, it always hurts me. It always
hurts me that we are living in poverty, although our country is
very rich.
The example that I have given to you, that I lost my uncle,
he disappear without any trace. But my colleague here, Mr.
Messet, I myself in 1970, I witnessed that the Indonesian
military shot dead or assassinated his brother, and I witnessed
it myself, the brutality of the Indonesian military in our
country.
What I could see since the last few years is that the
Indonesian Government yesterday or a few days ago, when I
arrived here at the airport, it is a very strong message I got.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, of the examples of the terminology
that they use. Micronesians, Polynesians and Melanesians. When
I arrived here, the immigration member asked me the meaning--
when you look at the color of my skin, that I am Black, of
course Australian people are White people. But the good
question he asked me is, uh-huh, you come from a country which
is known as Papua where we lost an American, Rockefeller. Was
he eaten by cannibals? I said, he was not eaten by cannibals,
but he was probably eaten by the crocodiles, because that is a
swampy area that he fished in.
But I remember that our dignity is being played around,
like a very famous--not Martin Luther King, but what you call
in this country Malcolm X--that the negativity that the
Indonesians have toward us, the black color is always nothing
but negativity. And, therefore, I like to--I am very proud of
you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry that I bring my emotion to you,
but these are the feelings I carry.
I brought to you to represent the people of West Papua
because I live as a citizen of Australia. I have gained
everything. But at the moment we have more than 12,000 refugees
in Papua New Guinea, but we were called as border crossers. But
in the future I would like to see if Australians can take
migrants from internal war of Sri Lanka or any other internal
wars in Asia. I like to see if Australia--because I am a
citizen of Australia, I would like to see the Australian
Government take some of our refugees, instead of being called
border crossers. And also in America, hopefully we can have the
United States of America accept some of our people who live
with stateless status in Papua New Guinea.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is all I like to bring to
you today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rumbewas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman for his statement.
You had mentioned something about stereotyping and a story
going around that Mr. Rockefeller was eaten by the Papuans. And
you had said earlier that, no, he wasn't eaten by the Papuans;
he was eaten by the crocodiles. I never could differentiate
between crocodiles and alligators.
But we have our own little story about people eating other
people. This is about Captain Cook, the famous British captain
who came to our islands. He was visiting the islands of our
cousins, the Tongans, and unbeknownst to Captain Cook, of
course, he left, and he gave a real grand name to the Tongans.
He named the islands the Friendly Islands of Tonga. Little did
he know, if he had stayed just a little longer, the Tongans
were going to kill him. Of course, then he came to Hawaii.
And another interesting story is about people being
introduced as to what great things their people did. And this
fellow was from Samoa. ``Oh, I am from so and so. We built the
Empire State Building. I am from so and so.'' So when it came
to him, he was asked about what famous thing his people
claimed. ``We ate Captain Cook,'' he said.
The gist of my story, Mr. Rumbewas, when the Hawaiians saw
Captain Cook, they thought that he was the great god Lono who
had come just at the right time for a festival. They treated
him almost like a god. And then in one of the skirmishes, one
of the Hawaiian chiefs stole some nails or a bolt, which they
fought over. And Captain Cook was in the mix. And what happened
was that one of the native Hawaiian chiefs struck him, and to
the amazement of the Hawaiian chiefs, he groaned. And in the
tradition of the Hawaiians, gods are not supposed to groan. So
he must not be a god. He must be human. So they killed him
instantly.
So that is our story of who ate Captain Cook and who ate
Mr. Rockefeller. We have all kinds of stories. So I can
identify with your statement about sometimes the negative
stereotyping which puts us in a very difficult situation.
Mr. Messet, please.
Mr. Messet. Chairman, that was a very exciting story about
this Mr. Cook. I want to ask you, was he cooked before being
eaten? Or was he eaten alive by crocodiles? Captain Cook, the
name is ``Cook.''
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Captain Cook, we have no crocodiles
in our islands, and when they killed him, they have a special
ritual for high chiefs, and they considered him a high chief.
So according to Hawaiian tradition, what they do, they
literally cooked him, stripped the meat, the body from the
bones, either fed him to the dogs or whatever. But then the
bones were kept as a token since he was a high chief, but he
wasn't a god. That is the story of Captain Cook.
I might also note the fact that he was known for being a
great navigator when, in fact, it was a Tahitian chief by the
name of Tupaia who told Captain Cook where some 80 islands were
located throughout the Pacific. So Captain Cook took him on his
voyages that went to the Pacific. And when he came to New
Zealand, my Maori cousins thought that the Tahitian chief was
the head of the delegation, and not Captain Cook.
So we have our own set of stories in relation to Mr.
Rumbewas'.
So to your question, sir, he literally was cooked.
STATEMENT OF MR. NICHOLAS SIMEONE MESSET, WEST PAPUA
Mr. Messet. Chairman, thank you very much. Members of the
subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for
this opportunity to testify before you on the issue of Papua,
my home and the place where I was born and raised. I know you
will hear many views today. The views I am about to say come
from my own life experience with human rights issues and
political developments in Papua. They come from my heart. I
have been on the outside and on the inside, and I think I have
a better view now.
Chairman, let me be clear on where I came from. I was very
critical and opposed to the Indonesian Government on the issue
of Papua. Papua has had a very difficult history. It is the
most beautiful place on the planet, but also a place where the
people suffered from Dutch colonialism and Indonesian
authoritarianism. There were injustices there, just like there
were injustices all over Indonesia. There were conflicts there,
and there were human rights violations, which also affected
members of my family.
But after many years of struggle and hardship, I realized
that I can only cry for so long. No amount of tears can bring
back the past. More importantly, I came to realize that the
best solution is special autonomy. The special autonomy is the
solution that is endorsed by the world community. This is the
solution. This is most practical, good for Jakarta, good for
the Papuans. This is the solution. This is best for the
Papuans. I really hope and believe that this solution would
bring political, economic and social empowerment for the
Papuans. It is a just and fair solution, and it will finally
allow Papuans to come to terms with our future.
There is now a light of hope for Papuans. We can breathe
the air of freedom. We can choose our own leaders. We can
control and spend our own spending. We can write our own
future. The more democratic Papua becomes, and the more
development we get, the more we can resolve social and
political tensions in Papua. As a Papuan, I really feel that we
are now opening a new beginning. We no longer feel sidelined,
but we are in control of our own destiny. I know my fellow
Indonesians also feel like this.
I have come here because I share your concern of human
rights. Believe me, I have experienced this problem firsthand.
There is still tension in Papua. The underlying conflict has
not gone away, and there can be no bright future, no peaceful
Papua unless respect for human rights is part of that future. I
do not know how long this tension will go on, but I do ask you
not to make the tensions worse, because when things get worse
in Papua, you stay here in your comfort, and we suffer. You
have to help to give them more hope, the right hope, not the
false hope. It is the hope of unity, reconciliation, freedom,
and development.
You cannot understand Papua if you only look and hear only
one side, and you cannot help us if you impose your views on
us. We Papuans are not political commodity. I have returned to
Papua, but Mr. Rumbewas remains to stay in Australia. I have
been living in Sweden, the most wealthy country in the world
and not America, Sweden is my asylum country, but I have to
leave that beautiful country. I have to go. My daughter said to
me, Dad, you are a madman. Why you took us from the darkness
and brought us to the light and now you want to go back to the
darkness? I said, ``That is your philosophy, my daughter.'' I
want to take that light back to the Papuans where they can see
the light, too. That is my daughter's philosophy.
It is better for me to struggle from the inside as part of
this process rather than to fight from the outside with no
result. I will keep pushing them to meet the commitment to
protect their rights and the interests of my people. And
because of special autonomy, I also keep pushing the elected
Papuan leaders to do more for our people.
I have no doubt whether the Indonesian Government was
serious about human rights, but I changed my mind during the
case of Theys Hiyo Eluay's murder. The military officers who
were found to be the masterminds in executing him were
sentenced accordingly by the court. The military now is also
restrained, unlike before, and I have not heard of major human
rights violations recently. In fact, there is a growing trend
of former OPM figures who have abandoned their cause and
rejoined the new Papuan democracy, including me.
Papua still has a very long way to go, Chairman. I do not
have any delusions about the magnitude of our problems, but we
cannot be stuck with the past. Otherwise, we are imprisoned by
our fears. I really want the United States Congress to help
Papuans improve their lives with more education, more jobs. I
also hope Papua will be more open to the outside world. But
this has to be lead not to more conflict, but to more peace,
Chairman.
I appreciate the attention of the United States Congress on
the issue of Papua. I hope you do not send the wrong message to
Indonesia and Papua. Do not undermine the goodwill that is now
being developed. Help us preserve and improve our human rights
that is now happening. Help us promote unity and
reconciliation.
In conclusion, Chairman, I, on behalf of the IGSSARPRI
Foundation, as an independent and privately funded group
dedicated to collaborating with all institutions and
individuals wherever they may be, including the Government of
Indonesia, to creating a just, peaceful, and prosperous society
in the nation of Indonesia, inclusive of Papua, wishes to
strongly make the following three-part recommendation on this
historic occasion: Number one, that the United States House of
Representatives and the United States administration under the
leadership of President Barack Hussein Obama, as a matter of
regional and international strategic priority, reaffirm and
strengthen the Comprehensive Partnership Arrangement between
the United States and the Republic of Indonesia without further
delay.
And number two, that in the future, where necessary,
important issue relating to human rights and environmental
concerns affecting Papua, as well as political, social and
economic empowerment considerations intended for the people of
the autonomous region be appropriately addressed strictly
within the spirit of the Comprehensive Partnership Agreement
between the two nations.
And thirdly, that care must at all times be exercised
whilst in the pursuit of the objectives of the Comprehensive
Partnership Arrangement between the two nations and not allow
any party to act in a manner that is liable to inflict
unnecessary discomfort and anxiety upon the people of the
autonomous region of Papua.
Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to be here to testify.
Thank you, God. I am pleased to hear that. As well, Chairman, I
am a Papuan, and I will still be a Papuan, but in Indonesia,
they call it Mel-Indo, Melanesia/Indonesia. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Messet follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Mr. Yumame.
STATEMENT OF MR. SALAMON MAURITS YUMAME, HEAD OF FORDEM (THE
DEMOCRATIC FORUM)
Mr. Yumame. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to
speak before you. I speak on behalf of Papuan peoples. We
Papuan people, our basic human rights have been denied for 41
years. When in 1969, we had been forced to become Indonesian by
the ``Act of No Choice,'' the act of manipulated choice.
Through these fairly important things, I want to thank you
for this meeting. It is very crucial to attend this testimony
so that you can tell everybody what we are facing now in West
Papua, that our people in West Papua today are in the verge on
extinctions if there is no immediate and brave action to
prevent it.
Yesterday when I am in the military airplane when I flew
from Jakarta to New York, I saw a brief film of Mr. Obama when
he is trying to--his campaign for the President. He has
promised the American people that we bring change. We believe
this change can give a better life for us, for American people,
and I feel that America has the capability--the American people
has the ability to serve the improvement of our life, change in
our Papuan life.
Mr. Chairman, the title of my testimony is ``The Failure of
Special Testimony in West Papua: A Journey from Heaven to
Hell.'' Today there are ongoing social conflict in West Papua
and has led to violation of human rights in Papua. Basically
there are three root causes of this conflict. First, it is the
political status quo of West Papua. Secondly is security
approach and human rights violation. And third is lack of
political commitment from the Government of Indonesia to
develop the Papuan people. They only just have our natural
resources. But the lack of commitment to develop our Papuan
people.
Special autonomy policies is an alternative policy by the
Indonesian Government for the people of Papua in 2001, after a
team of 100 people met with Indonesian President B.J. Habibie
to request for an Independent State of West Papua. After
implementation for almost 10 years, special autonomous policies
considered by most Papuan people that it does not become
prosperous policy, but, on the contrary, it has marginalized
Papua people and let them bound deeper in the cycle of
structural poverty.
Human rights violations continue to occur, and massive dead
of Papuan people population cause of poor health condition is
HIV/AID pandemic. The threat of death from various causes can
lead the nation in Papua face the threat of extinction.
The important causes are considered as the cause of the
failure of the implementation of Papua--of special autonomy of
Papua are, firstly, local government paralyze; secondly, divide
and conquer policy among Papuan people. The Indonesian gives
policy of ending the--against us in Papua area; third, massive
influx of migrant led to Papua population disaster. Papua
become minority in their homeland; fourth, the discrimination
in economic disparity. The Papua population has been
marginalized in the economic circle in the homeland; five,
massive exploitation of natural resources without counting
Papua people interest; and six, silent genocide policy
implemented by the Indonesian Government; and seventhly, human
rights violation by military and police over there.
As an intellectual, this worsening situation of most of
Papuan people, we organize a forum we call United Democratic
Papuan People Forum. We initiate and organize a new nonviolence
strategy. We have been working together with all Papuan
community, community-based organizations. Some of those
community leaders are with me today. They have come with me,
and they use the hat like this.
Since March 2010, we have been actively working hard to set
up awareness of our Papuan identity and dignity, which has been
destroyed by Indonesian Government. Since then we have
approached various group of community, mainly youth and women
and well-educated Papuans from high school to higher institute.
Besides that, we provide written information and distribute it
to Papuan people from door to door.
We have also successfully organized more than six peaceful
public demonstration, participated by more than 20,000 people.
Most of them are youth and women. We have been working closely
with Papuan People Assembly to hold Papuan People General
Assembly on 9 and 10 June, 2010, in Jayapura. In this Congress,
we, together with representative of Papuan people, have carried
out evaluation of implementation of Special Autonomy in Papua
Province. Finally, we have concluded that special autonomy
policy has failed to bring welfare for Papuan people.
As the consequences of the failure of special autonomy
policy, Papuan people reject the continuation of the
implementation of special autonomy, and urge the Indonesian
Government to seek special way for implementing referendum as
the final solution for Papuan people to exercise the right for
self-determination.
The decision of Papuan People Congress and decree of Papuan
People Assembly No. 2, 12 of June, I attach with my testimony.
Amid the decision of Congress Papua, FORDEM successfully
organized a huge public demonstration and marching along 20
miles, with an estimated participation more than 10,000 people
spent the night at the Parliament House in Jayapura. During
this public demonstration, the police commander threatened to
use violence to dispel the demonstration. We believe that
through peaceful and nonviolent strategy, we will gain
international attention and support.
With regard to the failure of special autonomy, which has
brought human right abuse in Papua since 41 years under
Indonesian authoritarian rule, I urge and propose to the
committee as follows: One, to uphold the protection of human
right in the world, including the human rights of the West
Papuan people, and to request the Government of Indonesia to
open a humane and acceptable dialogue for a fresh referendum to
replace the special autonomy policy.
Second, the U.S. Government should stop military support
for Indonesian Government as many of the human right abuse in
Papua still committed by military and police force.
Third, to put the pressure on Indonesian Government to
allow international NGO, researchers and journalists to visit
and work in Papua.
Four, we hope that American Government can have and can
consider to have a permanent consulate or U.S. Government
representatives to be in Papua in order to monitor the human
rights abuse in Papua.
Mr. Chairman, I had three PowerPoint presentations I want
to show you the situation about our suppression in Papua, if
you don't mind.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Yumame, we still have two other
witnesses who haven't testified. I think you have pretty much
just outlined what you said orally. I don't think we need to go
through your PowerPoints at this point in time, but they will
be made a part of the record. Okay?
Mr. Yumame. Okay. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Yumane follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Dr. Kirksey.
STATEMENT OF S. EBEN KIRKSEY, PH.D., VISITING ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR, THE GRADUATE CENTER, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Mr. Kirksey. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for
your leadership. It has been really consistent. And I see it is
a real heartfelt thing, and it is a struggle that I share with
you.
I didn't start out as a human rights activist. I went to
West Papua in 1998 with a grant from the U.S. Indonesia
Society. I basically wanted to study food. I wanted to study
how indigenous communities subsist and survive amidst changing
environmental circumstances. Weeks after I got there, I saw two
fellow students get shot. I was at the University of
Cenderawasih. That is the main government university in
Jayapura. Steven Suripatti, a law student, was shot in the
head. Corina Onim, a young woman, she was in high school, she
was shot in the leg.
I tried to get out of Jayapura. I went to Biak, and over
the course of 3 days, I was trapped in a hotel while a massacre
took place. Basically a group of protesters was surrounded at
dawn. There were Indonesian police there. There were military
people. There were Navy troops involved. They surrounded
protesters who were peacefully sleeping under the Morning Star
flag, and they started shooting into the crowd.
Let me read what one of the eyewitnesses, one of the
survivors told me. This eyewitness saw a truck that took the
bodies of the dead and the dying away from this crime scene:
``I counted 15 people in the first load. The truck came
a second time and I counted 17 people inside. When they
opened up the truck bed I could see lots of blood, in
that small truck there was lots of blood.''
In that initial attack there were about 29 people killed,
according to human rights reports. The survivors of that
initial attack, living people, were loaded onto Navy ships. I
could see those ships from the hotel where I was trapped. We
don't know exactly how many people were on those ships. What we
do know is that in the coming weeks, 32 decaying bodies washed
onto the shore.
I am going to be meeting with Mr. Scher later this week. We
are going to help him fill in some of those numbers. We are
coming up with more and more accurate numbers of how many
Papuans have been killed. Rather than go through those numbers
today, I would just like to show a single picture. This picture
is of a bag. It is floating in the ocean. In that bag is a
body. It was a 32-year-old health worker named Wellem Korwam.
He was executed by police forces. And, Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to show the pictures in this envelope today. I am going
to offer them to you. At your discretion, you can put them in
the record.
These pictures in this envelope here show what happened
after that bag was opened up. Basically the next picture in the
series shows a man with plastic gloves. He is arranging a torso
in a coffin. You can see white, black, and pink organs inside
of the torso. The next picture is a jumble of seven different
body parts; two legs, two arms, a head and a torso, two other
pieces of the body's trunk. The mouth of this body, the mouth
of Wellem Korwam, someone who was a living human being, is
distorted in these pictures. It is opened in a yawn. His eyes
have turned whitish green. They are staring unfocused. The nose
and the arms and the ears are all gone. Those pictures are in
this envelope.
The Rome Statute gives us a global framework for
prosecuting violators of human rights when they enjoy impunity
in their home country. I disagree with Mr. Scher. I think there
is a very systematic and deliberate pattern taking place.
People who harbor nationalist sentiments are targeted, they are
killed, they are jailed. Amnesty International has a prisoner
of conscience, Filep Karma, who is in jail for a 15-year jail
sentence for simply raising a flag.
Mr. Chairman, when U.S. citizens are killed, we can bring
the perpetrators of those crimes to our courts. I am offering a
33-page article published in a peer-reviewed journal about two
U.S. citizens, two schoolteachers, who were killed in Timika. I
reviewed the evidence in this article that Indonesian soldiers
participated in the shooting and killing of these Americans.
The Indonesian courtroom that tried this crime sentenced
Antonius Wamang and a couple of other Papuan accomplices.
Wamang got life. The other guys got a few years. Wamang pled
guilty to this crime, but it is very, very clear from the
evidence that I have that he was not acting alone. The
mastermind is at large. Mr. Wamang should be brought to a U.S.
courtroom to be tried.
I would also like to repeat a recommendation that Mr.
Yumame made. In the moment after Wamang was sentenced, this
person who had pled guilty to killing Americans, for several
years, U.S. military aid was held up on the outcome of this
case. But after Wamang was sentenced to life in prison, the
Bush administration signaled a new era of military cooperation
with Indonesia. Right now we have millions of U.S. taxpayer
dollars going to foreign military financing as well as
international education training, IMED, for Indonesia's
security forces. These are U.S. taxpayer dollars funding this.
There are currently no legislative restrictions on purchases of
U.S. military equipment by Indonesia.
Mr. Chairman, Indonesia's track record speaks for itself.
The question I have for the administration is does the
Democratic Party really want to continue associating with these
human rights abusers? In my personal opinion, I think military
aid from the United States to Indonesia should be cut off. If
the Appropriations Committee decides to keep these programs in
place, very real conditions and clear benchmarks should be
established. The Indonesian Police, military and Navy should
receive no more funding from the U.S. Government until the
murderers of Wellem Korwam are brought to justice. They should
receive no U.S. funds until Indonesian officials let forensic
pathologists exhume the mass graves on Biak.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this historic hearing.
With your continued leadership, the U.S. Government will play a
role in ending Indonesian military impunity in West Papua.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirksey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Dr. Richardson.
STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, PH.D., ASIA ADVOCACY DIRECTOR,
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best
to be succinct. But thank you very much for having this
hearing. I think your leadership on this issue gives people
hope.
Human Rights Watch takes no position on the claims to self-
determination in Indonesia or in any other country; however,
consistent with international law, we take a very strong
position on the right of all individuals, including peaceful
independence supporters, to express their political views
peacefully without fear of arrest or other forms of reprisal.
And we have long expressed concerns about ongoing abuses by the
security forces in Papua and the lack of accountability for
those abuses.
Since 2007 alone, we have written four reports about abuses
in Papua. There are copies here, and I would like to ask that
they be made part of the record. Those detail abuses ranging
from severe restrictions on the freedoms of expression,
assembly and association to extrajudicial killings, tortures
and rape. Many of those abuses were carried out by members of
the security forces, including Brimob, Kostrad and Kopassus.
You asked the earlier witnesses about what they thought
contributes to some of the frustrations of people in Papua, and
I think it is imperative that we spend a few minutes talking
about impunity. I think it is very difficult to get people to
buy into any sort of governing regime when they feel that the
terrible abuses that they have suffered will go uninvestigated.
And that has very much been the case not just in Papua, but
across Indonesia.
In July 2010, shortly after Secretary Gates left Jakarta,
the TNI chief Djoko Santoso was quoted saying that as far as
the TNI is concerned, the issue of past human rights violations
is over.
As long as people are not prosecuted for human rights
abuses, they are not over. Impunity itself is a human rights
abuse. And while many people either in Washington or in Jakarta
may want us to believe that the TNI or other security forces in
Indonesia do not carry out abuses on the scale that they once
did, the fact that there is near total impunity for abuses in
the past and now, and now--this is not in the past, this is
now--is an extremely serious problem.
I want to share with you just a few examples both from
Papua and elsewhere. The failures to investigate and prosecute,
for example, the cases of civilians abused by Kopassus forces
in Merauke in 2008 and 2009; the case of Yawan Wayeni in August
2009, who was taunted by members of the security forces as he
laid dying; the cases of 13 activists who were disappeared in
1997 and 1998; and, of course, the case of Munir for which no
one has ever really successfully been prosecuted.
We have also documented extremely light sentences given to
members of the military who were actually prosecuted and
convicted for human rights abuses. We continue to see ongoing
promotions for service within the military of people who are
both credibly alleged and who have been convicted of human
rights abuses.
Here I find it a little bit difficult to accept the
characterization of the removal of TNI from politics when the
new Deputy Defense Minister is, in fact, a Kopassus officer who
has a somewhat checkered past.
We also see tremendous resistance to parliamentary
oversight for impunity. We have not seen the kinds of
commissions, the ad hoc court requested by the DPI to look into
the disappearances of the students, nor have we seen movement
on a bill that would give jurisdiction over the prosecution for
abuses committed by members of the military of civilians into
civilian courts.
I think the argument often goes that somehow accountability
and justice are inimical to peace. We couldn't disagree with
that more. And, in fact, my organization has done extensive
research to show that accountability is crucial to long-term
peace settlements and their stability. In that spirit, I would
make the following recommendations, particularly to the
Indonesian Government, that it immediately and unconditionally
release all of the persons who are held for peaceful expression
of their political views, particularly those we have written
about in Papua; to amend or repeal all articles and regulations
that criminalize forms of expression; to promptly respond to
credible reports of torture in custody--this is also a very
serious problem we have written about in Papua; and to remove
arbitrary restrictions on access to all regions of Papua.
To the U.S. Government, which we believe seriously
undermined standards for military cooperation and
accountability globally when it resumed ties to Kopassus, the
U.S. should first recondition assistance to the Indonesian
military and police on strict standards of accountability for
current and past abuses. It should also push for the amendment
or repeal of Indonesian laws that allow for the imprisonment of
individuals for peaceful political expression, and the release
of those imprisoned. And last but not least, it should push for
the passage of Indonesian laws that shift prosecution of
soldiers who have abused civilians into civilian courts.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. This has been a long afternoon, ladies
and gentlemen, and it has not been very easy. I sense that
there seems to be a difference of opinion about the current
status of Papua and its relationship to Indonesia.
Mr. Mote, you indicated that you feel that special autonomy
status has failed. And I hear from Mr. Messet that he feels
that special autonomy should still be on the books, or on the
table, and that every effort should be made with the Indonesian
Government to continue the process.
So I would like to ask Mr. Mote, since you said that
special autonomy has failed, what do you propose in place of
that?
Mr. Mote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The conclusion that the special autonomy has failed is
really based not just people's experience as Papua People's
Council or Papua Consultative Council, but this is based on a
review that the Cenderawasih University has conducted. And
President Yudhoyono just stated that he will reevaluate it.
But the problem is, it is simple. On one hand, the
President is promising and promising; but on the other hand, at
the same time, the law, the military is conducting their
nightmares to the Papuans. And the People Assembly, for
instance----
Mr. Faleomavaega. No, Mr. Mote, my question is--you have
made the statement that special autonomy has failed. What do
you propose in exchange for that?
Mr. Mote. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My proposal, wishes
in line with the people of Papua, they call for a dialogue, and
the dialogue that they are calling for is the dialogue that is
facilitated by a third party.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Messet, as you know, months ago when
I was in Jakarta, we had a very, very--what I thought was a
very meaningful meeting, especially with one of the senior
elders, Mr. Nicholas Jouwe. I am sure that all of you have had
communications in your relationship with Mr. Jouwe. What is
your assessment of the situation among the leaders? Because I
am getting mixed signals here now. I mean, do you honestly
believe that President SBY is making every effort to implement
the provisions of special autonomy?
Mr. Messet. Chairman, President SBY is a very honest man, I
can tell you now. We have met in Jakarta on the second of April
of this year. A lengthy discussion has been mostly about
developments in Papua, how Americans involve themselves, how
the American authority can ask the Indonesian Government about
the special autonomy. That is why the three recommendations
that I made here is for your Congress to consider and the
United States administration to consider.
Special autonomy doesn't work, because we, the Papuans, we
ourselves, have to reclaim ourselves, not Jakarta. Our leaders
from the Governor, lord mayors, they are the one that you see.
The money doesn't--they don't go down to the grassroots. When
there are injections of, tomorrow will be independence, that is
why everyone wants to say, oh, yeah, tomorrow if we get
independence, we will be better than living with Indonesia. But
if tomorrow we get independence----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is your mic on? Something is wrong with
the PA system here. Even my mic is not on.
Mr. Messet. Mr. Chairman, I think dialogue can be done to
revise what autonomy has failed in Papua so we Papuans can talk
with the central government about what we want, because
autonomy, special autonomy, is a new thing to Indonesia. It is
a new thing to implement only in Papua, Chairman. So this
means, trouble with this is how to run it. An enormous amount
of money has been given to the indigenous Papuans--not me, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Kirksey. If I might jump in, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to ask Yumame, because you have
also expressed a similar concern that you feel this autonomy
has failed, what is your option? If you feel that special
autonomy has failed, what do you suggest that the Papuan people
do?
Mr. Yumame. Thank you.
Most of Papuan people, we cannot believe in the missing
government anymore. They say what you--like good saying, but
they have done contrary.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No. My question, Yumame, is what do you
propose?
Mr. Yumame. Yes. I propose as many Papuan people want. They
want ask to determine ourselves. We still stay in Indonesia, or
we make our own state. All the Papuan people live like that, so
they see there is no hope in special autonomy. They want to--
any other solution, give the chance to Papuan, their choice,
which kind of government they want. They want to stay in
Indonesia, they won't make the step. For example, unity with
the United States.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Kirksey?
Mr. Kirksey. Sir, I know that Mr. Yumame has submitted some
remarkable documents for the record, basically a signed
statement by very senior leadership reflecting the outcome of a
Congress that involved thousands and thousands of people. It
was a unanimous consultation. I think there were two
dissensions, but everyone said special autonomy has failed. I
think the reason----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to follow up on what you just
said. Was there a summit?
Mr. Kirksey. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Was there a meeting of all the top
leaders among the Papuan people?
Mr. Kirksey. Yes. There was a very large summit.
Mr. Faleomavaega. When was this done?
Mr. Kirksey. This was in July of this year.
Mr. Faleomavaega. 2 months ago?
Mr. Kirksey. Yes. What is really significant about that
summit is that a lot of the drafters of the legislation were
the participants. So the very people who wrote this law are
saying, ``This is no longer working. We need to do something
new.''
One of the flaws in the legislation as it was passed by the
Indonesian Government is that it rejected some earlier
provisions to put the Indonesian military under the control of
local and regional civilian elected leaders. Right now there is
still this shadow power structure. The Indonesian military and
police operate with complete impunity. They are off civilian
budgets.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, that is how Suharto had been
operating for some 30 years, with a shadow military presence
and all the different councils. Not just in West Papua, but it
was also true throughout Indonesia.
Mr. Kirksey. Exactly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So there is nothing new in that respect.
The bottom line basically is to make sure that he has control
of the situation.
Mr. Kirksey. Exactly.
Mr. Faleomavaega. So this summit that was held in July
concluded that the special autonomy is no longer viable? Now
what do you propose?
Mr. Kirksey. Actually in those documents there is a series
of recommendations that that summit made, and I don't know if
you have those at hand now, but they are in the record. There
is a series of recommendations.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, what are they? Give us two or three
of the most important recommendations.
Mr. Yumame. Yes. We have 11 recommendations. Firstly, we
reject the continuation of special autonomy law because we
think that it will destroy our dignity and extincts our Papuan
people in our homeland.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What does Governor Suebu say about that?
Mr. Yumame. We have invited him. He attended our meeting,
the Papua people meeting.
Mr. Faleomavaega. What about the other Governor?
Mr. Yumame. We have given our decision to the Suebu
government, to the People Representative Assembly, to the SBY
government. Now they are thinking about it, and they think they
want to give evaluation to the special autonomy. They want to--
the use of the autonomy has been use for good things or not.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me ask you this. It is my
understanding that Governor Suebu and the other Governor are
the two highest elected officials among the Papuan people. Now,
how much credence is given to these two elected Governors in
terms of their relationship as elected officials of the Papuan
people?
Mr. Yumame. Okay. Now we all--most Papuan people, we don't
believe about the government, because we see they leave us
under the Indonesian operation system that did not give them
the chance to formulate strategy for development Papuan people.
Those best on Papuan----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am being the devil's advocate here.
These two gentlemen were elected by the Papuan people. And, of
course, as you know, in a democracy, if you feel that these
gentlemen are not doing the will of the people, isn't there a
process among the two provinces to recall or make an effort to
get rid of them if they are not doing properly their leadership
role in being the two highest elected officials among the
Papuans?
Mr. Yumame. Maybe I going to tell you that election system
in Indonesia is not--our choice with our hat. Now they are
bravely to the people, so we have to choice the men that can
give more money, not they----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, you know, I am sure that Governor
Suebu--who is the other Governor?
Mr. Rumbewas. Abraham Atururi.
Mr. Faleomavaega. This is critical because we need to
understand this a little better, because in understanding that
these are the two highest elected officials among the Papuan
people, that was the will of the people being expressed. Now
are you saying that you don't want special autonomy, that these
two elected officials don't represent your interests anymore?
Well, then how does this work within your provincial
governments if these two need to be recalled by way of having
an election to get rid of them, if that is what you wish?
Mr. Rumbewas.
Mr. Rumbewas. Right. Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Abraham
Atururi. I used to be an interpreter for him. But he is a
former general from the army, from the navy. He is one of the
leading Papuans, including--they have very good records of
working together with Indonesian Government to invade East
Timor.
So basically, yes, we would like to have our own leaders,
our Melanesian leaders, to lead us, but they are just remote
controllers. They are controlled by the Indonesian central
government.
I just visited recently the province of Aceh. But the good
thing I noticed in Aceh and also in New Caledonia, you
mentioned this morning about Mr. Chubau. I wish if the
Indonesian Government could give us a chance, as a matter of
fact, on the decision of 14, we are not allowed to have a full,
although we are only some kind of--some symbolic leadership. We
are refused to do that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Don't bring East Timor into this
situation. I don't think it is fair to Mr. Numberi. I know Mr.
Numberi. He is a member of the President's cabinet, highly
respected, and he has his own point of view, and was former
Governor of West Papua. And as I recall, one of the big
problems that we have in Papua is the corruption, even among
the Papuan leaders and members.
So I just want to kind of make sure that the record is
clear. What I wanted to just get from you is whether you are
saying that you have serious problems with special autonomy
that I have always advocated and I have always believed in.
Because that was the consensus that I got from the Papuan
people and leaders--that they want to continue working to
implement special autonomy. And I feel that if these basic
essential elements are within the implementation of special
autonomy, your civil rights, being treated fairly, the military
not harassing you, or Kopassus or whatever, that you have an
opportunity to make your own decisions. And one of them--and
correct me if I am wrong--is the fact that you have elected
your own Governors. They are not selected by Jakarta. It was by
vote of the Papuan people that Governors Suebu and Atururi were
duly elected as officials of the two provinces. Now, if you
feel that that is now highly questionable in terms of their
leadership, then it is up to the Papuan people themselves who
are going to have to do that, not Jakarta.
Mr. Mote.
Mr. Mote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problem with the two
Governors is that, in one hand, they are representatives of
Jakarta, and then also they are representative of West Papuans
people who elect them. I have two personal stories about the
Governor Suebu, where he trying to defend his people and many
time he get a threat. He was even--cannot leave country because
he was about to put in a travel ban. That happened just right
after he was--come back from Mexico as Ambassador. And he try,
Mr. Chairman, try to defend his people. But Jakarta, they
didn't listen to him what he trying to defend. So in front of
our people of West Papua, he seems like a powerless Governor
because he cannot fight on behalf of them. And one other
example, Mr. Chairman, which has just happened this month.
There is a project in Merauke, it is called MIFEE project. It
was proposed by----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Mote, I don't want to interrupt you,
but I am not here to point the finger or pass judgment on Mr.
Suebu's capacity or whatever may have been his conduct. As I
have said, this is really a local issue among the Papuans
themselves and I don't want to suggest that we are here to put
out dirty laundry, all the bad things about your own leaders
that you elected.
Mr. Mote. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Wait, wait. I am not through yet. So I
just want to make sure that, in fairness to your elected
leaders, you understand that this is very, very important and
elementary in American democracy. You elect someone, even if he
is a son of whomever. But he is the elected person. And there
is a recourse and a process so that if he is not worthy of that
position or that office, then that is something that the Papuan
people themselves are going to have to work within the system
to find someone else to be your Governor. I think we are moving
astray from the line of questioning that I have. If not,
special autonomy, then what----
Mr. Kirksey. If I might, a lot of the assertions about
democracy in Indonesia from the State Department earlier this
afternoon were sort of uncritically, just sort of left there
hanging in the air. The current situation for elections must be
seen within this longer history. During the Suharto era, every
couple of years, or every 4 years you would have this grand
democracy celebration, where the President staged these
rituals, that you know there really weren't any other
candidates. It was just him, you know, getting selected again
and again and again and again. There definitely has been----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Kirksey, I don't mean to interrupt
you, but President SBY was among one or two or three candidates
for the presidency, so you can't say that he was the only
candidate during the election process.
Mr. Kirksey. Exactly. There has definitely been improvement
since 1998 when a popular democracy movement in Indonesia
kicked Suharto out of office. But on a local and regional
level, there are still all sorts of shenanigans that go on
during election time. Ballot boxes are stuffed.
Mr. Faleomavaega. How about our own shenanigans in our own
election process here in America?
Mr. Kirksey. So the candidates that are elected are
constrained by political parties that are centered in Jakarta.
It is not as transparent and representative as it is here.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I question even our own sense of
transparency when we had to have nine justices at the Supreme
Court to determine who our next President is going to be. That
is not very democratic. I mean, come on. But I am very
concerned, as I have always said from the very beginning when I
met with the delegations of our friends from Papua, how
important it is that there be a sense of direction and
sentiments and consensus coming from the Papuan people as to
their desires and their aspirations. We talk about
reconciliation. We talk about all these things. I think we all
agree on that. Now, there are difficulties, as Mr. Messet had
said. There is no denial that the human rights abuses and all
these things continue to go on. But at the same time, I am
wanting to know from you, give me a better proposal or a better
plan or other options. I know we have proposed that we have a
dialogue with the best minds, both among the Indonesians and
the Papuans, to have a dialogue with Jakarta or the SBY
administration.
Now, that hasn't come about and there are some serious
questions. And as you all know, one of the most serious
concerns in Jakarta is that once you start talking about
independence, then all bets are off. There is just no way that
the Indonesian Government is going to grant independence. That
is as best as I can assess the situation for the 15 years that
I have been following this and we have known that Indonesia is
very determined to see that Papua continues to be under the
umbrella or the sovereignty of Indonesia. But I think the
challenge for us is, with that being the reality, what are some
of the suggestions that you might have on how we can move
Indonesia to another phase of the ongoing process so that the
Papuan people's rights are respected, human rights and all of
this? I think that is where we are, where the rubber meets the
road in terms of the difficulties that we have. And that has
been my frustration too.
And Mr. Messet, I want to assure you that the last thing I
ever want to do, or even this institution, Congress, is to tell
your people what to do. Not the least ever, ever that we would
entertain the thought that we would want to do this to your
people or even to the Indonesian Government. But the whole
basis of what we are trying to pursue here, give us a line,
give us a dialogue. Give us an area or things that you feel are
constructive in the process. And I suppose then, with a sense
of confidence, that President SBY will say, Okay, let's do
something to be more helpful in making sure that the rights of
the Papuan people are preserved or enhanced and that the
military, TNI's presence, will be controlled, and just have a
good mutual relationship between Jakarta and the people of
Papua. If that is not your goal, or your sense of the future,
then tell me what other options there are.
Mr. Messet. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I apologize for making
that remark, but I certainly hope that Papuans will decide the
best for themselves within the Republic of Indonesia. And
special autonomy should be revised and work properly to empower
the Papuan people.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, Mr. Messet, as I have said, as part
of my frustration, it has been 9 years now since we have been
talking about special autonomy. And my friends, or our friends
in Indonesia and Jakarta have not produced or shown any sense
of planning, how to go about implementing the provisions of
special autonomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that has been
my observation for the past 9 years.
Mr. Messet. I totally agree with you, chairman. Special
autonomy is not only run by the Papuans in Papua but also from
Jakarta. It has been decided that you hold the tail and leave
the head goes around, but you control the tail. So if the
special autonomy is totally given to the Papuans, I believe and
I trust Papuan can look out for himself and they will be very
happy to remain part of Indonesia until the end of the world.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And I believe, in response to your
comment, I think that is the challenge of our Papuan people and
leaders--to show Jakarta that you do have the capacity and the
capabilities and the wherewithal to be autonomous and not cause
a revolution or something to that effect. I think that is
really where we are at as far as the issue is concerned. Let me
ask you this: Some of you may express concern about the
Congress expressing an interest about West Papua. I believe
there are other countries whose leaders have also expressed
concern. I believe members of the British Parliament have also
expressed concern on this, though not very many. Not very many.
And I will be your friend and be frank with you. West Papua is
not even on the radar screen as far as Washington is concerned.
I just want to be realistic. We are not at the forefront of
establishing or saying that this is part of our national
conscience, national policy, in dealing with Indonesia and the
reality of how we go about dealing with the Papuan people. But
it doesn't mean that we ought to just stop there. But we have--
the process has to start somewhere. And it is my sincere hope
that this hearing will be part of that process. Again, I want
to ask the question of Mr. Jouwe. What is Mr. Jouwe's position
on this whole matter of special autonomy?
Mr. Messet. Mr. Jouwe is now attached to the foundation and
he is now living in Jakarta.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I know. But what is his outlook in the
long term for Papua's future? You know, if I am understanding,
he is the founder of OPM, certainly one of the elder statesmen
and leaders of the Papuan people. And I sense he is very, very
highly respected among the Papuan leaders and the people. And I
just want to ask a question. What is his sense of vision for
the Papuan people?
Mr. Messet. His vision is that special autonomy is the only
solution for the Papuans, chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Mote, and after that, Dr. Drooglever.
Mr. Mote. When he arrived in Jakarta, he said that he will.
He wanted to see if Government of Indonesia is really
protecting Papuans rights so that they can live freely. My
question, really back to Mr. Jouwe, if he is planning to live
in West Papua, why now then he lives in Jayapura? There
something is wrong. About the special autonomy, really the
problem is, I really----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Mote, I am not defending Mr. Jouwe,
but I can think of several reasons. Maybe he has a health
condition or maybe he is unable to live in Janipura simply
because of health reasons and not because he doesn't want to
live in West Papua. I make that assumption, but please don't
raise questions of that nature in fairness to Mr. Jouwe and his
reasons for staying in Jakarta rather than living in West
Papua. I think the gentleman, certainly in my sense when I met
with the gentleman, has a sense of respect among the Papuan
people and their leaders. I just wanted to----
Mr. Messet. Thank you very much, Chairman. I highly
appreciated your concern about Mr. Jouwe. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Drooglever.
Mr. Drooglever. Mr. Chairman, actually I was not wishing to
interfere. It was just a token of concern for what was said
here. But now I am speaking. As a historian, I am living in the
past so I have got the right to talk about the present. But
when you look through what has happened with the----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me add this, Dr. Drooglever. I think
it was the famous poet philosopher Santayana who said those who
don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Maybe take
off from that point.
Mr. Drooglever. When you are looking back into the past,
the recent past then you see that as soon as special autonomy
was the thing of the future, then a couple of times revisions
have been proposed. And then in all new proposals that are
formulated, the last point, at the end of the revision, was the
right of self determination. So I think the problem indeed for
Papua society is that it cannot make a choice between autonomy
and self determination. They want to have both, and I think
that is the core of the problem.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Comments to that, gentlemen?
Mr. Yumame. I want to remind you that most of Papua, when
they follow the Papuan people called us on June, they have
decided. Papua must be given the chance to give their voice to
give their choice. They will see that under the division
government we have been manipulated with many policies. So the
root of the problem, as I have said to you that many Papuans
still think that our political status is questionable.
So in the special autonomy without the commitment, not as
we don't believe. What kind of special autonomy will give us?
So the people of Papua want give us chance to choose. We want
to stay in Indonesia. We want to make our own, or we want the
United States for example. Let us the voice of all the people
most of the people in Papua, maybe some of us come, represent
the voice of some early, some bureaucratic that now they have
benefit of their position. I want to remind you that I have
said to you that we don't believe anymore. We don't believe.
Suebu when he was--try to campaign for the position, he give
promise that he will take the Papuan people to freedom.
And he made promise like that. So all the people, all the
Papuan people, chose him as the Governor. But when he sits as
the Governor he forgot his freedom. He doesn't fight for that.
He just only gives promises, promises, promises. Well, many
Papuan people have died. Some things like, this thing the
political system, the political party system not good to part
in that. So as you have said to us, Why you elect Suebu? Why
you have him in the election? Because the system not based on
pure democratic, many begin, dominated the political party so
they choose the Governor that can protect their interests. So
our Papua, if I, for example, have good idea for protect Papuan
people, but if there is no political party, choose me as the
candidate.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay. So I gather that now there seems to
be consensus among the Papuan leaders to get rid of Governor
Suebu.
Mr. Yumame. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. Then who do you want to be in
his place? What options do you propose if you want to get rid
of Governor Suebu, get rid of Governor Abraham? Where do you go
from there? Mr. Mote.
Mr. Mote. Mr. Congressman, I think it is not fair we get
our Governor. I tried to explain was that he try, as a Governor
try to defend his own people. I agree with--Mr. Messet said
that you give some things, but you control from the Jakarta.
That is, whoever will be Governor with that condition, no one,
no one can really lead our people.
The demand from West Papuans people because of the--in one
hand you let these radical group running their dirty work in
West Papua, on the other one, let that others, you know kind of
try to explain that they want to do something, and in that kind
of a condition, whoever Governor would be in West Papua would
not be able to lead.
So we are here, and what we are trying to say is that the
trust through the Governor is not personal because of his
ability. Because no one be able to control, even U.S.
Government, on human rights issue, the powerful government here
cannot talk with Indonesian Government. Really, the problem in
West Papua is we have lost our dignity. We know we will being
steal from our land. We are just 2 million people in 250
million Indonesian population. So I think we need to, as I was
trying to explain, one of example about the MIFEE Project, he
reject that project, but Jakarta said no we will go ahead and
he wasn't even invite by Governor, Indonesian Minister of
Forestry when the project was allowed. This had just happened.
So what they want is someone, someone West Papuans like a
puppet who can just follow. And Congressman, I assure you,
Suebu is a great leader.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me share with you something. We
probably have 56 elected Governors from the different States
and territories in America. And these Governors have the same
problems with the Federal Government, almost like Washington
has been the biggest problem as well. So what I am saying is
that I don't think your situation, your problem is any
different from the problems that we are facing here as elected
officials in Washington. A lot of times they are in conflict
with the wishes of the people from different states who elect
their Governors, okay?
So I just wanted to share that bit of information about,
when you elect your people, whatever Jakarta's opinion is about
whom you elect, the fact is that your people elected these two
officials, not Jakarta and not anybody. I don't think Jakarta
put any pressure on you to elect Governor Suebu to begin with.
So whatever deficiencies or problems that you feel that Dr.
Suebu--that he doesn't represent your interests--we have the
same problems with our State Governors. And there are
complaints that some of our State Governors don't represent the
interests of their States, especially in dealing with the
Federal Government.
So I just want to kind of cushion that idea is that you
elect your Governor. They have got a lot of serious problems.
Their leadership may be weak in various areas. And so it is
true with all others. But the whole idea, and I want to ask you
were these two gentlemen elected by the people? They were not
selected by Jakarta, am I correct or wrong on this?
Mr. Messet. That is right, Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Messet?
Mr. Messet. I think I said that is correct. Next year there
will be another election, and hopefully the Papuan people will
decide who is the next Governor for Papua and West Papua
provinces. And this time, as you said, don't blame the leaders,
but ask the people to answer.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In our democracy, once the people make
their will known through the ballot box and you are elected,
you are very dear and close to the hearts of the people because
the people's will has been expressed about you and you
represent the people. Now, if they are not doing their job, we
vote them out. It is as simple as that. And I suspect that come
next year, when Governor Suebu and Abraham are up for
reelection, you will then have an opportunity to say you want
to get rid of these two leaders and choose somebody else.
But I think when you generalize by saying that it is
Jakarta that puts the pressure on you, when, in fact, Jakarta
was never involved in your election process. This is what I
really want to emphasize. You elected these two officials, not
Jakarta. And whatever problems that you are having with them
now, in next year's election, then it is your wish to elect
someone else. I mean, that is what the representation and
democracy is all about. And unless, if I understand it
differently, how and why people are elected, you know, for us,
come 2 months from now, all 441 Members of Congress are going
to be up for re-election. Every 2 years the entire House of
Representatives has to stand for re-election. So why? So that
the will of the people will be made known in the process.
Now, again, you have to understand all your culture, all
your traditions. But when it comes to the point where you now
have the privilege of electing these two officials, the highest
ranking officials among the Papuan people, that is very, very
serious for how Members of Congress, my colleagues and people
here in America perceive how your democracy has evolved. The
fact is that your people are now given the privilege of
electing your own Governors rather than them being selected by
Jakarta. Okay, are we in the, understand that.
Mr. Rumbewas. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether you are
familiar with the recent situation where more than 10,000
people walking down through the Parliament to the West for a
referendum. One of the decision, which is still part of the
Indonesian system, which is Decision 14, the Papuans, as Mr.
Messet mentioned, would like to have a full voice and determine
of whether the Governor of the district full Black Melanesian
people. There is a fear. There is a fear from the Indonesian
Government to reject that policy. And at the moment they expect
not a full Black Melanesians, but we also have vice where they
are Indonesians.
Now, as I mentioned to you, that I travel to Aceh and I see
the Acehnese, they are Indonesian citizens like us according to
the Indonesian Constitution, but they are free to appoint or
elect their own native Acehnese and plus international
community allow that to happen. Now, if as Mr. Messet
mentioned, if Acehnese are Indonesians and we are Indonesians
too, we have the right to support by the international
communities to elect our own leaders like Aceh. And we have the
discrimination. So people like Mr. Suebu and the Governor of
Ataruli are basically people, the leaders who are making
promises like Mr. Yumame mentioned.
During the campaign, Mr. Suebu promised some people that
when he stands up, he will talk about independence. But after
he looks after his own tribe and his family, this is the whole
issue.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Rumbewas, a lot of times politicians
make promises. Okay? If you want to get reelected or elected,
you make promises. And a lot of times there is a failure on
those promises, just like our President Obama has made a lot of
promises, and now he is coming under severe criticism. That is
part of the election process. Now, you mentioned that the Aceh
people select their own Governor. Now I am given to understand
that you have a legislative counsel in the two provinces. Who
elects members of the legislature in your province? Are they
selected or are they elected? Mr. Yumame.
Mr. Yumame. The election system in the Papuan province, the
candidate should be put by the political party.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Okay.
Mr. Yumame. So, as I said, now most of the political party
led by migrant peoples. So most of our Papuan not involved in
this political party. And by now, as you know, now migration,
this massive migration came to Papua, so now we are a minority
in our own place. So when the political party, and we go to the
election system, our voice becomes the minority voice.
So by now, if you follow the election, that really no
Papuan become the leaders in Papua if we can protect with
special election, like Mr. Rumbewas said enacted last year, our
Papuan people assembly has made a decision that only Papuan can
be candidates for the chief and his vice.
But the Indonesian Government doesn't achieve that. So we
try to pursue the--we try to speak our voice, but we have now
become the minority in our place. So if you force us to follow
the election system, democratic election system there will not
be any Papuan will become Governor because we have become
minority in our place. And this is the danger we will be
replaced tomorrow our future for the next Governor election.
Papuans people voice has become minority. So we could not
just Papuan people as the chief, so that is the problem for us.
You said that democracy system like this. But our situation is
essentially the same. Papua people have become the minority
there. So that is the problem. We believe that if we follow the
democratic system like this, we also lose.
Mr. Kirksey. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
correct something that Mr. Yun said earlier. He said it is a
60/40 relationship right now. We just had the 2010 Census
results. The strange thing about the Census is that it doesn't
differentiate between Papuans and migrants. It is done as in
previous Census data, what has been done by an Australian
scholar, Jim Elmsley, and this is a document I can put on the
record. He has taken the historical growth rate of Papuan
populations and extrapolated what he thinks is the current
relationship, the current ratio of Papuans versus migrants. His
conclusion, in a paper published last week, is that Papuans
have already become a minority. So just to correct what Mr. Yun
said.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, what is the percentage difference?
Mr. Kirksey. It is just under 50 percent right now, based
on his calculations.
Mr. Faleomavaega. But again, those are just estimates. They
are not the real count.
Mr. Kirksey. Right. So it is basically they are hiding this
question. Previously, the Indonesian Government made that data
available. So us, as scholars, we have to do the math to figure
out, you know, basically what we think is going on. And
Indonesia should make that data available but at this point,
they are not.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Any further comments?
Mr. Messet. Chairman, I just want to make a comment about
Yumame's remarks. Special autonomy has 76 or 79 articles. And
one of the articles clearly said that the Governor and the vice
governor should be a Melanesian. It doesn't mention that,
doesn't mention anything because it is not stated in the
special autonomies articles. It should be made a condition on
that which the MRP hasn't done so. That is our vote, the
Papuans vote, not the Jakarta vote. They get millions of funds
to establish this to make that, but we are lazy. We are lazy to
do that.
That is why it happened. That is why I said, autonomy is a
good start. We have to go build on that. We make dialogue to
revise autonomy so that it can be success for the Papuan people
to remain in the fourth largest nation in the world.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you. Mr. Mote.
Mr. Mote. I didn't know what kind of data that Mr. Messet
is using to manipulate these fact that--based on the time from
the Governor and that we showed that what Mr. Messet just said
are totally wrong. And I would like to explain to you that this
is not because of, as himself as a, you know, lazy. I am not.
And this is really racial, you know, I never imagine in this
kind of a forum this gentleman say that we are lazy. It is not
the case. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Faleomavaega. I don't think he was implying that you
are lazy. He is just making a generalization that some Papuans
are lazy. But I don't think he was directing his remarks at
you, with all due respect.
Mr. Mote. No, I mean because the case is this, Mr.
Chairman, that regardless of the West Papua province saying
that Mr. Messet just saying it is to prepare in the past. That
is supposed to be get endorsement from the government in order
to take that to law, put in practice, and you know to evaluate
the implication of special autonomy.
He stated clearly that the central government doesn't have
a heart because they don't endorse those--the law. So, and
then, another example, under special autonomy law, government
form people assembly, MRP. And when they try to fight for
Papuans rights, they calling are that law, the Jakarta
stigmatize, Mr. Chairman, as this is separatist movement. A
group. The leader is separatist leader. How in the world, they
are elected leader, Mr. Chairman, according to Indonesian law,
and they are put in a stigma as a separatist leader.
So really, the special autonomy is nothing worse because of
the Jakarta really doesn't want to give the special autonomy.
Just as the background, Mr. Chairman, the special autonomy is
agreed not because of Jakarta's intention to give Papua, but
because of the political situation in that moment, and
Indonesian people assembly, MRP--MPR, was decreed that we have
to give special autonomy. And the government delays many of the
promises of the special autonomy.
So I will file, as the record, the objective facts about
this special autonomy, because we are not making statement
after statement as Mr. Messet just saying. But please, you
know, say the objective effect that you know all of these not
working because the Jakarta didn't pass a law that all the
regulation can work, the Jakarta stigmatize whoever fight for
our dignity, whoever fight for, you know, our protection as a
separatist. That is the problem. The comparison to the
democratic system in the United States, Mr. Chairman, you have
a Governor where there is, you can, you know, always face the
Federal Government. But the Federal Government will not
stigmatize that Governor as enemy of the State.
And he doesn't have to be scared for his life just because
he is critical to the Indonesian Government. And the last
example, Mr. Chairman, I was a journalist in Indonesia biggest
newspaper for 11 years. I experience. And I can give you many
others, Papuans where we try to fight, protect our people. They
stigmatize us as enemy of the state. That is really the
problem. That is a problem that is faced by any of the Papuans.
So what Jakarta wants is someone West Papuan, slave, someone
who just follow what Jakarta want. That is our problem, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I want to know what interested one of our
Senators, very noted gentleman from the State of New York,
Senator Moynihan. In the heat of the debate, everybody was
quoting all their facts and all these things and saying it was
the honest truth. And he made an observation which I thought is
very much part of this dialogue. He said, ``Sir, you may be
entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your
facts.'' The point is that you can't make your own facts and
try to justify that what you said is the truth.
And again, I am not trying to lessen the importance of your
opinions, which all of you are entitled to, and all of you have
different opinions. The same reason that we were in a very
interesting situation in dealing with Jakarta and the purpose
of this is to figure out some of the challenges. What are some
of the suggestions or recommendations that you gentlemen and
Dr. Richardson may want to make for the Government of Indonesia
in its treatment of the people in West Papua? So you know, I
just want to note that. Do you have any further statements? I
am about to put the gavel down. Dr. Kirksey.
Mr. Kirksey. Just a real quick one on that last point. Mr.
Yumame has suggested that a consulate in West Papua of the U.S.
Government could help monitor human rights abuses. I think that
is----
Mr. Faleomavaega. There is no way that is going to happen.
Mr. Kirksey. No way?
Mr. Faleomavaega. You need to understand, the question of
sovereignty is very, very key and important. No more than the
suggestion that Indonesia wants to set up a consulate here to
keep track of whatever problem that we have. So there has got
to be an understanding that we deal in terms of our
interactions with other countries. But at the same time, there
has to be a respect for their sovereignty.
As bad as it may seem in the opinions of others, when you
talk about human rights, that is the traditional rule in terms
of the relationships existing among the different countries of
the world. And while I respect your recommendation that we have
a consulate in West Papua, to do this, I can just say----
Mr. Kirksey. Related to U.S. Government presence, NAMRU,
the Naval Medical Research Unit, has been there for at least a
decade if not, well much longer than that. My question is, what
are they doing there? They are conducting research about
malaria. I have had malaria 12 times. Part of this, what has
been called by some Papuan intellectuals a silent genocide or a
slow genocide deals with public health.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The Americans are doing that?
Mr. Kirksey. This is the U.S. Naval Medical Research unit.
They have been conducting experiments for many years, but they
have not liaised with any local health officials. Malaria is a
disease that we know how to control. It used to be all over the
United States and many Latin American countries. It has been
eliminated. It is within our capacity as the U.S. Government,
with this research unit, with this, you know, history of
working there. We can solve this problem.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I can't answer your question on that, Dr.
Kirksey, as to why they are there and conducting experiments
and the problem dealing with mosquitos and malaria, but that is
a very serious issue in West Papua as it is in other parts of
the world. So I am afraid I can't respond to your statement and
questions why we are there. Mr. Rumbewas.
Mr. Rumbewas. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to return to you
again and again. But one clear example is when I receive a
letter from a conversation with my comrade here a month, and
also we have arguments, very positive arguments with Mr.
Messet. Let me say that regarding being lazy or not, I have
good opportunities when my father was in prison, as I have
testified to you today, and I got good education. Prosperity in
Australia, like America and the Western World. But when I
received the invitation, I returned. I come here. But I have
returned to Papua to teach English. And that is what I wish
that we were given the opportunity for the indigenous, start
from the beginning of what in the history the Dutch tried to
recruit us before we got our independence.
Yes, political independence like Papua New Guinea. After
getting their independence, they have problems. What I like to
see is, and I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, as soon
as I return after sitting with my other colleagues here as
Papuan, I am not allowed to return to Papua as Mr. Messet
mentioned. You are away from America, but the concern of my
people, the concern of my people, but what I have experienced
in my life, I can never return again. Since the last 2 days,
the Indonesian intelligence have been visiting the relatives I
live in Papua.
And this is the freedom, and that is what I like to see
that a full autonomy, like as I said, again and again, the
Acehnese are Indonesians. We are Indonesians. But why can't we
have, why can't America ask the Indonesians that there is a
third party, so I can return like Mr. Messet and Franz Albert
Yoca behind us, as a human beings like any Papuans and we
decide these are the leaders we would like to choose and to
lead ourselves like any other human being. We don't have that.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Rumbewas, in fairness, I can't say
why you can't go. Maybe it is a security risk.
Mr. Rumbewas. That is correct.
Mr. Faleomavaega. The fear of the Indonesian Government
might be that you are going to cause riots and cause a
revolution. I don't know. But I just want to say that your
capacity, and why you are in asylum living in Australia is true
with many other people from many other countries of the world
living in asylum simply because of those concerns.
So I can't answer your question as to why the Indonesian
Government does not allow you to return, when Mr. Nicholas
Jouwe or Mr. Messet are now able to return, because they were
also very much anti-Indonesia in terms of what happened in the
past and the abuses or whatever. But in your particular
situation, I really can't respond to your question as to why
you can't return in the same way that Mr. Messet and Mr. Jouwe
were able to go back.
Mr. Rumbewas. That is true, Mr. Chairman. Only if I can be
Melindo, not Melanesian to look after my own people. Only if I
can be Melindo, Melanesian Indonesian, which means I have to
accept the reality of the Indonesian ruling us. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mote. If I may, I would like to add that I fully agree
with what just Professor Drooglever was saying, that we never
have any experience of our self-determination. I just would
like to inform you that the special autonomy package was not
decided by West Papuans people. We just force to accept that as
the same as in our way and our right of self-determination was
forced by others. So we didn't call for our right to decide
about our, as a human being in our land. And which is
therefore, I am support Papuan people calling for referendum,
or you can say internationally facilitated the dialogue.
Whatever form it will be, but the chance that as Papuan people,
they can exercise our freedom to express what we want to be.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, I can't question your sincerity
over what you say happened in the past in terms of the rights
of Papuan people. That is a matter of history. And Dr.
Drooglever's book clearly points to that. I don't question
that. The challenge here now is where do we go from here? How
is the right of self-determination going to be given to the
Papuan people? Another question is whether or not the
Indonesian Government is going to grant that. The same way the
referendum was held in East Timor under the auspices of the
United Nations.
I know that is the ideal situation to be given the right
for you to determine your own future. We all want that. There
is no question that as a matter of principle, your people were
denied that privilege of self determination. Okay.
So the reality is where do we go from there in terms of
this denial that was given to you? You can take to the streets.
You can have demonstrations. You can take up arms and conduct a
guerilla war. These are the options. But the question is, are
you willing to spill blood for this kind of thing? And I have
always cautioned, as much as possible, with all due respect to
our Papuan people, you have bows and arrows and spears and they
have guns and bullets. That bullets travel a little faster than
the spears. And that is reality.
And I just want to share with you that my ultimate--really
the last thing I would ever want to do is to spill blood of the
Papuan people over this issue. Now, I wish we could do it. If
there is a way it can be done peacefully through dialogue, I
will keep pushing Jakarta to give you that privilege. But we
are not at that juncture right now. When that is going to come
about, your guess is as good as mine. But I sincerely hope, and
for something that now I am sensing that you have an entirely
different agenda now in terms of saying that you are denying
any more discussions about special autonomy.
But my question to you is where do we go from here? If not
special autonomy, then what? Take it to the streets? Take up
arms, because that basically is the price that you are, if you
want freedom that badly, and willing to spill your guts and
blood for it, then do it. But I say the better part of my
common sense is that I just don't think Papuan blood is too
precious to be spilled over a situation that has taken place
over a 60-year period. Yes, your people have suffered. But we
have to continue the process. And I sincerely hope that
President SBY, in his last term for the next 3 years, and I say
this in good faith, that he is sincere in wanting to help the
Papuan people. How he is going to go about in doing this, well,
this is something that I hope that the dialog will continue.
And like I said, the whole purpose of this hearing is not
to point fingers at anybody or to give any sense of charges
about the evils that have been done in the past. My more
serious concern is where we are now and what do we need to do
for the future? And if you have got better ideas based on where
the consensus of the Papuan people lies in this, please let us
know. I have had some of your leaders who have come from other
countries all claiming that they speak on behalf the Papuan
people.
Now, I take this with a grain of salt because personally, I
would rather talk to the people who are in Papua, who are
struggling, who are actually there, to know their problems and
their struggles. So there are so many different issues and
concerns that we need to address. And like you, Mr. Messet, I
have always said, yes, your people have to make that
determination. You have to make that decision, not the American
Congress or this country.
But ultimately, what is it that your people want
collectively and under a unified sense of voice that this is
what you want. And certainly, with what little I can do in my
capacity as chairman of this subcommittee, that is all I can
do. So this has been a very lively dialogue in the sense that
we have certainly differences of opinion about different
issues. But that is the very purpose of having this hearing.
Where do we go from here? I don't know if I get reelected in
November. I may not show up again and you may not see my ugly
face again come November. I don't know. But I will say, again,
in good faith and sincerity, that I think President SBY does
have a sincere heart in wanting to help the Papuan people. How
he goes about doing this, what things are being done, that is
the challenge for all of us, whether it be by dialogue or some
other forum or however that we may want to do this.
But I really hope that we continue to have this dialogue
and communication and hope that Jakarta will be more
forthcoming in helping the people of Papua. So with that, if
you have no further statements that you want to add for the
record, I am going to use this gavel and say, the hearing is
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 6:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
__________
Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from American Samoa, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
