Response to Call to Apply Indonesia's Anti-Terrorism Law in West Papua
by Ed McWilliamsFebruary 1, 2013
http://www.etan.org/news/2013/01response.htm
In
a December 5, 2012 lecture at Stanford University's
International Policy Studies program ( revised January 22, 2013), the
respected Southeast Asia analyst Sidney Jones discussed the
Indonesian government's unwillingness, thus far, to
categorize the Papuan "ethno-nationalists/separatists" as
"terrorists." Jones identifies these Papuan
"ethno-nationalists" and "separatists" as the armed Papuan
opposition, Operasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) and what she
describes as "an extremist faction of KNPB, the West Papua
National Committee, a militant pro-independence
organization." Jones cites various incidents of violence in
West Papua that she claims were committed by these
"ethno-nationalists and separatists."
The authors of
violence in the Indonesian archipelago, especially violence
with complex motives, are never so clear cut as her lecture
implies. This is especially true of West Papua where
police-military rivalries over access to resources and
sources of extortion monies is well known.
Her analysis
focuses on the different approaches employed against the
West Papuan "ethno-nationalists/separatists" and against
Islamic militants ("jihadists") by prosecutors and the
security forces (police, military and Detachment 88). Jones contends that "the
discrepancy between the way the two groups are treated by
the legal system is untenable." She considers two
alternatives: One would be to employ anti-terrorism law in
West Papua, and the other would entail moving away from the
use of anti-terror law against "jihadists." She argues
extensively against the latter approach of "pulling back
from the use of the anti-terror law."
Jones contends that
pressure for use of the anti-terror law against
"ethno-nationalists/separatists" is growing among Islamic
observers. In particular, she cites Harits Abu Ulya,
director of the Community of Ideological Islamic Analysts
(CIIA): "If the government is consistent, then it should
acknowledge that attacks motivated by ethno-nationalism and
separatism be considered terrorism because they are carried
out by an organization with a political vision that uses
terrorism to influence the security environment and
challenge(s) the sovereignty of the state. Why aren't we
seeing forces being sent en masse to cleanse Papua of
separatism?"
Jones' argument warrants a more detailed
critique than space here allows, but even a brief review
reveals a number of problems.
Jones summarily credits
recent violent acts in West Papua to the "ethno-nationalists
and separatists." This is surprising insofar as Jones is a
highly regarded observer of the Indonesian political scene
with a deep human rights background. She knows, or should
know, that the authors of violence in the Indonesian
archipelago -- especially violence with complex motives --
are never so clear cut as her lecture implies. This is
especially true of West Papua where police-military
rivalries over access to resources and sources of extortion
monies is well known. Jones should know also that military,
police and intelligence agencies, have long played the role
of provocateur, orchestrating acts of violence which advance
agendas that are invariably obscure.
Jones cites what she
claims is recent "ethno-nationalist" pressure on the giant
Freeport McMoRan mining operation. She ignores the reality
that such pressure in the past has frequently
been orchestrated by the military, specifically the Indonesian Special
Forces (Kopassus). To be fair, Jones alludes to
this complexity but largely dismisses it. Her analysis
similarly ignores the reality that the Indonesian state has
long blocked international monitoring of such security force
skullduggery and manipulation of the security environment in
West Papua by restricting travel by international
journalists, human rights researchers and others to and
within the region.
Jones also fails to acknowledge the
reality, widely noted in international and local human
rights circles, that the Indonesian government has long
sought to smear peaceful dissent in West Papua as
"separatist." Jakarta, through the aegis of a corrupt court
system and often criminal state security forces, has
repeatedly employed the "separatist" label to arrest and
prosecute or detain peaceful political dissenters, such as
those who display the Papuan morning star flag. Courts
regularly resort to charges of treason that date to the
Dutch colonial era and widely used by the Suharto
dictatorship to intimidate dissidents. Jones' call for
Indonesia to define "separatism" as "terrorism" would deepen
Jakarta's targeting of peaceful dissent and the intimidation
of Papuans generally.
Use of the anti-terror law would
enable the police to detain "separatist" suspects, including
those engaging in peaceful protest, for a week rather than
48 hours. The law also empowers the police to employ
electronic surveillance. Ongoing efforts would strengthen
the anti-terror law to give the police even broader powers
to limit the freedom of speech and assembly.
The argument
to employ the "terrorist" label against "ethno-nationalist
and separatist" groups and individuals in West Papua could
have direct legal implications for international solidarity
movements.
Jones' claim that the West Papua Nationalist
Committee (KNPB) is an "extremist," is without
substantiation. Criminal activity by some alleged members of
the KNPB is generally not well corroborated and usually
reflects efforts by the State to undermine the organization. The KNPB,
and many other Papuan organizations and individuals are
indeed ever more strongly pressing for Papuan rights,
importantly including the long-denied Papuan right to self determination. But
these efforts are largely nonviolent.
In recent years,
this struggle has found growing support within the
international community. Employing the "terrorist" label
against "ethno-nationalist and separatist" groups and
individuals in West Papua could have direct legal
implications for international solidarity movements. In the
U.S., groups or individuals who advocate on behalf of groups
designated by the U.S. government as "terrorists" are
subject to criminal prosecution. Given the close relations
among governments, including those of the U.S. and Australia
and Indonesia's security forces, Indonesian government
labeling dissidents in West Papua as "terrorist" could have
dire implications for the solidarity network. How long would
it be before the U.S. and other governments themselves begin
to label various Papuan groups and individuals as
'"terrorist." U.S. and other international groups acting in
solidarity with Papuans seeking to attain their rights could
be criminally targeted and charged.
In sum, the Jones
analysis is hobbled by the very term "terrorism" which is so
poorly defined international law and procedure as to
threaten and intimidate even those groups and individuals
engaged in peaceful dissent.
In a final note, Sidney
Jones, who was the Asia Director for Human Rights Watch from
1989 to 2002, should at a minimum explicitly reject the call
by Harits Abu Ulya that she cites in her lecture for the
Indonesian government "to cleanse Papua of separatism." Such
rhetoric gives license to the kind of atrocities already
visited on the people of the Indonesian archipelago,
including Timor-Leste, for far too long.
*************
Edmund McWilliams is a retired U.S. Foreign
Service Officer who served as the Political Counselor at the
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta 1996-1999. He received the American
Foreign Service Association’s Christian Herter Award for
creative dissent by a senior foreign service official. He is
a member of the West Papua Advocacy Team and a
consultant with the East
Timor and Indonesia Action Network
(ETAN).
0 Komentar Anda:
Post a Comment
Your Comment Here