RI panggang atas Catatan hak Asasi Manusia Pada Sesi HAM PBB

Laporan Yohanna Ririhena, The Jakarta Post - Jenewa

Jenewa,-- Anggota Komite Hak Asasi Manusia PBB mempertanyakan komitmen Indonesia untuk menyelesaikan pelanggaran HAM, melindungi agama minoritas dan penggunaan kekuatan yang berlebihan di kalangan aparat negara, pada sesi review PBB pada Rabu.

Panitia, yang terdiri dari 18 ahli hak asasi manusia dari seluruh dunia, menyoroti bahwa kegagalan untuk menegakkan hukum dan ketertiban mengakibatkan pelanggaran hak asasi, selama penilaian pertama pelaksanaan Kovenan Internasional tentang Hak Sipil dan Politik (ICCPR).

Pertanyaan rinci dan tajam menyentuh berbagai kasus termasuk pembunuhan aktivis hak asasi Munir pada tahun 2004; pembunuhan ekstra yudisial di Papua, UU 2008 tentang pornografi yang dianggap diskriminatif terhadap perempuan dan masyarakat LBGTIQ, penerapan hukum Syariah di Aceh, dan serangan terhadap pengikut Syiah di Madura, Jawa Timur, pada Ahmadiyah di Cikeusik, Jawa Barat, di gereja maupun di festival film gay.

Komite wakil ketua Yadh Ben Achour mencatat budaya endemik impunitas meski negara meratifikasi ICCPR. Ia mempertanyakan mengapa Kejaksaan Agung (Kejagung) telah gagal untuk melanjutkan dengan rekomendasi dari Komisi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia (Komnas HAM).

"Ada ketegangan dan rekomendasi tidak selalu diterima dengan baik. Ada tuduhan bahwa pemerintah diminta untuk mengabaikan rekomendasi Komnas HAM. "

Achour juga meneliti tentang kesesuaian peraturan daerah (perda) dan hukum nasional dan norma-norma internasional.

"Ada kontradiksi antara otonomi dan pemerintah," tegasnya.

Ia meminta penjelasan mengenai penerapan hukum Syariah di Aceh, khususnya mengenai hukuman fisik. "Apakah itu sesuai dengan ICCPR, terutama pada penggunaan kekuatan yang berlebihan?"

Delegasi Indonesia yang terdiri 22 pejabat pemerintah, polisi dan militer yang dipimpin oleh Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia Direktur Departemen umum HAM Harkristuti Harkrisnowo, disajikan sebuah laporan awal tentang keadaan hak-hak sipil dan politik di markas PBB di Jenewa pada hari Rabu dan Kamis.

Menanggapi pertanyaan anggota komite ', Harkristuti menekankan bahwa konstitusi tidak mengatakan apa-apa tentang konvensi internasional. "Status instrumen internasional adalah sama dengan undang-undang nasional, tidak di atas. Dalam kasus konflik, maka akan dibawa ke Mahkamah Agung. "

Pada isu kebijakan dan program untuk pelaksanaan ICCPR, katanya, itu telah tercermin dalam rencana aksi HAM nasional dan melalui berbagai peraturan nasional dan regional.

Perwakilan LSM Indonesia mengkritik pemerintah tentang penjelasan yang kredibel.

Poengky Indarti dari Imparsial berpendapat bahwa pemerintah belum menyentuh pada fakta-fakta yang nyata. "Dengan [besar] delegasi, pemerintah seharusnya sudah menyiapkan data yang lebih mandiri, dan tidak hanya sikap membela."

Choirul Anam dari Kelompok Kerja Hak Asasi Manusia menyesalkan penjelasan pemerintah, mengatakan ada kurangnya data konkret dan rinci.

Indonesia dituntut untuk transparan pada catatan hak asasi manusia

Genewa Swiss,-- The Jakarta Post Melaporkan Bahwa Sebuah koalisi kelompok hak asasi manusia telah mendesak pemerintah Indonesia untuk lebih terbuka dalam melaporkan situasi hak asasi manusia di negara itu ketika menyajikan sebuah laporan di PBB sesi di Jenewa nanti minggu ini. 

Seperti di kutip The Jakarta Post

Delegasi Pemerintah Indonesia dijadwalkan memberikan laporan tentang pelaksanaan Kovenan Internasional Hak Sipil dan Politik (ICCPR) selama sesi Komite Hak Asasi Manusia di Jenewa, Swiss pada tanggal 10 Juli dan 11.

Ini akan menjadi laporan pertama Indonesia diperiksa oleh panitia setelah delapan tahun ratifikasi Indonesia ICCPR. Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Republik Indonesia meratifikasi ICCPR dengan memberlakukan UU No 12/2005 (UU no. 12/2005).

"Kami berharap pemerintah akan lebih terbuka tentang situasi hak asasi manusia di negara itu setelah menandatangani perjanjian," kata direktur eksekutif Human Rights Working Group (HRWG) Rafendi Djamin selama akhir pekan.

Dia mencatat bahwa menutupi fakta-fakta nyata dari situasi hak asasi manusia atau menolak untuk mengakui kebenaran akan dijalankan terhadap semangat negara sebagai negara pihak ICCPR.

Rafendi memberi contoh bahwa telah terjadi penyiksaan dan perlakuan buruk terhadap para tahanan, terutama teroris miskin dan dugaan.

Dalam laporannya, pemerintah mengatakan: "Adalah penting untuk menekankan bahwa dalam demokrasi di mana media bebas dan transparansi merupakan salah satu elemen penting, kejadian dari setiap pelanggaran terhadap para tahanan selalu terbuka untuk umum, termasuk cara otoritas terkait mengatasi kejadian tersebut. Namun, mengkategorikan kejadian penyiksaan di fasilitas penahanan luas adalah berlebihan. "

HRWG PBB manajer program Ali Akbar Tanjung menambahkan bahwa keterbukaan dalam menyajikan laporan akan menjadi penting. Karena komite terdiri atas ahli, rekomendasi mereka akan penting bagi upaya pemerintah untuk menjamin perlindungan hak asasi manusia.

"Ini berbeda dengan UPR [Universal Periodic Review] ketika rekomendasinya bisa bernuansa politik, karena laporan pemerintah ditinjau oleh sesama negara anggota," kata Akbar.

 HRWG, mewakili sekitar 50 kelompok masyarakat sipil di seluruh negeri, telah mengindikasikan bahwa delapan tahun setelah ratifikasi, perlindungan hak asasi manusia masih belum membaik.

"Akan sulit untuk tidak mengatakan bahwa perlindungan HAM tidak membaik," tambah Rafendi.

Oleh karena itu, masyarakat sipil berharap sesi komite pertama akan menjadi ujian keterbukaan pemerintah dan konsistensi komitmen terhadap perlindungan hak asasi manusia, termasuk rehabilitasi dan restitusi bagi korban.

HRWG telah menyerahkan laporannya kepada panitia, menggarisbawahi beberapa isu yang akan disorot

dalam rekomendasi mendatang: perlindungan minoritas agama, perempuan dan LGBTI, situasi di Papua, penyiksaan tahanan, hukuman mati dan peraturan yang bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip hak asasi manusia dan norma-norma.

Komite Hak Asasi Manusia adalah sebuah badan pakar independen yang memantau pelaksanaan ICCPR oleh pihak negaranya. Semua pihak negara wajib menyampaikan laporan berkala kepada panitia tentang bagaimana hak tersebut dilaksanakan. Amerika awalnya harus melaporkan satu tahun setelah mengaksesi perjanjian dan kemudian setiap kali permintaan panitia (biasanya setiap empat tahun).

Komite ini bertemu di Jenewa atau New York dan biasanya memegang tiga sesi per tahun. Mengkaji setiap laporan dan menyampaikan keprihatinan dan rekomendasinya kepada pihak negara yang bersangkutan dalam bentuk "menyimpulkan pengamatan".

Sesi ke-108 panitia akan diselenggarakan dari 08-26 Juli - Selanjutnta The Jakarta Post 

Pimpinan Gereja Papua Minta Pemantau Khusus PBB Diizinkan ke Papua

Usulan 2 Tokoh Gereja kepada Kedubes Belanda 

Tokoh Gereja. Socratez S. Yoman

JAYAPURA— Dua  Tokoh Gereja vokal di Papua masing-masing,  Pdt. Socratez Sofyan Yoman dan Pdt. Dr. Beny Giay,  bertemu Dubes Belanda Tjeerd de Zwaan  didampingi Wakil Kepala  Divisi  Politik Kedubes  Belanda, Maarten Van Den Bosch. 

Pertemuan itu   berlangsung selama dua jam mulai  pukul 18.00 WIT hingga 20.00 WIT di Swissbelt Hotel, Jayapura, Selasa (2/7) malam. 

Dalam pertemuan itu, pihak  Dubes Belanda menanyakan  soal  implementasi Otsus dan adanya Otsus Plus  bagi  rakyat Papua,    namun menurut  Socratez Sofyan Yoman,  pihaknya menyampaikan  Otsus  telah gagal.  

“UU Otsus  bagus.  Kalau kita lihat   dari UU pasal  demi pasal atau  item demi item  itu bagus.  Tapi    telah gagal dilaksanakan oleh pemerintah Indonesia.  Karena itu kan bergaining  politic  antara pemerintah Indonesia dan  rakyat Papua,” tukas dia.

Kemudian masalah yang lain,  lanjut Socratez,  adalah Otsus  Plus. Otsus  Plus  bukan solusi, tapi sekedar mengubah nama, namun substansinya tak ada penyelesaian. 

 

Karena  itu, bebernya,  pihakmya mengusulkan beberapa  hal kepada Dubes Belanda, agar   pemerintah Indonesia   perlu melakukan  beberapa  langkah. Pertama, bebaskan semua   Tapol/Napol di Tanah Papua tanpa  syarat.  

Kedua, wartawan asing izinkan masuk Papua  untuk  melihat pembangunan   di Papua. Ketiga,  ada pemantau khusus  PBB diizinkan masuk ke  Tanah Papua. Keempat, ada dialog  untuk  penyelesaian masalah Papua secara  komprehensif dan  bermartabat  melalui  dialog   damai  yang jujur antara pemerintah Indonesia  dan rakyat Papua tanpa syarat  dan dimediasi  pihak ketiga yang netral. 

Senada dengan  itu, Beny Giay menuturkan, pihak  Dubes Belanda  ingin mengetahui  tentang   Otsus  itu apakah dalam  Otsus  itu ada  hal-hal yang bisa diangkat dan bisa diimplementasikan untuk kepentingan  rakyat  Papua. 

Dikatakan Doktor  Antropologi  ini,   Dubes Belanda  juga bertanya soal  Otsus Plus, tapi pihaknya menyampaikan Otsus  ini sudah dinilai  gagal baik oleh masyarakat Papua  maupun Indonesia, karena   15  Agustus  2005  itu  Otsus telah dikembalikan ke pemerintah Indonesia. 

“Jadi kita  anggap Otsus  itu sudah ‘almarhum’. Sekarang persoalannya pemerintah Indonesia mengeluarkan dua kebijakan masing-masing  UP4B  dan Otsus Plus. Yang terakhir  ini belum diketahui kegunaannya karena belum  didiskusikan di publik,” jelasnya. 

Karenanya, kata  dia,  Dubes Belanda  juga   berpikir bagaimana Otsus Plus  bisa disikapi  oleh  orang Papua  untuk  bisa memperoleh manfaat dari  itu. 

Sumber: Bintang Papua 

Pakar PBB: Pembangunan di Indonesia tidak boleh mengancam perumahan yang layak bagi kaum miskin

UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing Raquel Rolnik. UN Photo/Ryan Brown

Geneva,-- 11 Juni 2013 - Indonesia harus memastikan bahwa pembangunan perkotaan dan ekonomi tidak menempatkan perumahan yang layak risiko untuk warga miskin, seorang ahli independen Bangsa Amerika menekankan hari ini, menambahkan bahwa pemerintah harus berjuang untuk kemajuan inklusif.

 

"Saya khawatir bahwa dalam beberapa kasus pembangunan memiliki dampak mundur tentang hak atas perumahan yang layak," kata Pelapor Khusus tentang perumahan yang layak , Raquel Rolnik, mengacu pada laporan penggusuran di daerah pedesaan dan perkotaan untuk membuat jalan bagi publik dan perkembangan pribadi.

 

Ms Rolnik menggarisbawahi bahwa penggusuran adalah pelanggaran berat hukum hak asasi manusia internasional. "Saya meminta pemerintah untuk memastikan bahwa undang-undang yang mengatur penggusuran ini sejalan dengan kewajiban HAM internasional Indonesia dan sepatutnya diterapkan pada lembaga negara dan pihak ketiga," katanya pada akhir kunjungan pertamanya ke negara itu.

 

"Lebih bisa dan harus dilakukan untuk memprioritaskan paling miskin segmen masyarakat dalam kebijakan dan program perumahan pemerintah."

 

Selama kunjungannya, Ms Rolnik memeriksa beberapa kebijakan perumahan dan program, beberapa menargetkan rumah tangga berpendapatan rendah. Sementara dia memuji keragaman program, yang meliputi peningkatan permukiman informal dan apartemen sewa berpenghasilan rendah, ia menyatakan keprihatinan bahwa Pemerintah saat ini berkonsentrasi pada upaya dan sumber daya pada kebijakan pembiayaan perumahan, yang dapat merusak akses ke perumahan yang terjangkau bagi miskin.

 

"Kebijakan pembiayaan perumahan secara inheren diskriminatif terhadap orang miskin - mereka yang tinggal di permukiman informal, bekerja di pasar informal dan petani skala kecil, yang mewakili sebagian besar masyarakat Indonesia, tetapi tidak dapat mengakses kredit formal dan karena itu tidak bisa mendapatkan keuntungan dari kebijakan tersebut, "dia memperingatkan , menambahkan bahwa kebijakan ini juga mempercepat lonjakan harga perumahan dan lahan.

 

Ms Rolnik mendesak pemerintah untuk merancang dan mengimplementasikan reformasi kebijakan pertanahan yang komprehensif untuk meningkatkan keamanan kepemilikan orang Indonesia dan mengatur dampak dari kekuatan pasar pada ketersediaan lahan dan keterjangkauan.

 

Dia juga menunjuk pada budaya organisasi kemasyarakatan yang kuat sebagai aset negara dapat digunakan untuk memanfaatkan kekuatan individu dan menerapkan strategi perumahan pro-kaum miskin nasional berdasarkan standar hak asasi manusia.

 

Selama kunjungannya 12 hari, Ms Rolnik bertemu pejabat senior pemerintah, lembaga donor, organisasi internasional, lembaga HAM nasional, lembaga keuangan, masyarakat sipil dan masyarakat di Jakarta, Makassar, Surabaya dan Yogyakarta.

 

Ahli independen, atau pelapor khusus, ditunjuk oleh Dewan HAM untuk memeriksa dan melaporkan kembali pada situasi negara atau tema hak asasi manusia tertentu. Mereka bekerja dalam kapasitas yang belum dibayar. Ms Rolnik dijadwalkan untuk menyajikan laporan terakhirnya di Indonesia pada Maret 2014.

 Sumber: United Nation News Centre

Berita Tracker: cerita masa lalu tentang masalah ini 

Pakar hak asasi manusia PBB mendesak Independen Indonesia untuk menghentikan eksekusi

5 Statement KNPB In Action Support MSG

Polici baner KNPB

Jayapura SBPNews,-- Support action against MSG meeting and opening of Free West Papua in Port Moresby PNG runs in police and military pressure in Jayapura. Although next police dispersed and arrested three activists, however KNPB mandated National Parliament of Papua Barat (PNWP) continue the action to colonial Indonesian Parliament DPRP taken command and read Warpo Wetipo 5 West Papuan people's attitudes.

 
Here are 5 statement:

First, we need a nation of West Papua full support Melanesian brothers to restore the status of West Papua as an official membership MSG and supports the position of clump Melanesian countries to make West Papua MSG members.  

Second, we urge Heads of State-Melanesian country now revisiting Testament 1947 Canberra or Canberra Verdag clauses according Agreement formation of the South Pacific Canberra on 6 February 1947 was to establish a Commission of the South Pacific (South Pacific Commission).

Third, we menyeruhkan West Papua as a human rights monitoring zone and urged the United Nations to intervene immediately. 

Fourth, the Special Rapporteur urges the UN and the International Journalists right down to West Papua.  

Fifth, urgent and calls on all parties berkempeten immediately opened the democratic space as possible, stop the violence in West Papua and the right to self-determination as a democratic solution to the people of Papua.

 
Actions with similar claims are also made ​​in Sorong, Nabire, Yahokimo, Yalimo, and Timika. While in Yogyakarta, Bandung, Solo and performed by Papuan Students who are members of the Papua Student Alliance (AMP).

Why is West Papua closed to foreign journalists?

 Opinion By. Socratez Sofyan Yoman - In TAPOL.ORG

Socratez Sofyan Yoman

Earlier this year I had a meeting with a friend who is a foreign journalist in Jakarta. During our conversation which lasted almost an hour, I asked him. ‘When are you planning to visit Papua to get information directly from there?’ My friend said: ‘We are not permitted by the Indonesian government to visit Papua. I have made several requests to visit Papua but the government has turned down all my requests.’ So I asked him: ‘Why are they not allowing you to visit Papua’ to which he replied: ‘The Indonesian government always says that it is not possible to guarantee the safety of foreign journalists in Papua. The OPM could kidnap or kill them.’

On hearing this, I burst out laughing which surprised my friend who asked me why I was laughing. I said because what government says is very strange; there is no justification for them to say such a thing.

This was not the first time I had heard this from journalists. Every foreign journalist has told me the same thing. My response has always been: ‘Isn’t it because they have something to hide. What is the Indonesian government doing to the Papuan people?’

If foreign journalists are not allowed to visit Papua, it must surely mean that the government has something to hide. If the Indonesian government has been helping the Papuan people to make progress in the past fifty years, then surely foreign journalists would be allowed to go there so as to be able to report on progress there with regard to education, health, the economy, culture and all aspects of life and make this information available to the international community.

One thing is certain. Papuans are not kidnappers, they are not murderers. Papuans want peace and have always respected other human beings throughout the ages. Long before the Indonesian government occupied and colonised Papua as a result of the New York Agreement on 15 August 1962, when administration of the territory was handed over by the United Nations to Indonesia on 1 May 1963 and the fraudulent Act of Free Choice took place in 1969. Ever since 5 February 1855, foreigners, white people from Europe have been coming to Papua as missionaries or evangelists. I would also mention Gotlob Geisler and Carl William Ottow and other foreigners who have visited Papua since 1855, that is to say 107 years before the Indonesian government annexed Papua in 1962. These foreigners stayed there with the indigenous Papuan people.

Johann Gotlob and Carl William Ottow arrived in Papua on Sunday, 5 February 1855. They landed in the Gulf of Doreh Mansiman, Manokwari. The moment they set foot here, they declared: ‘In the name of our lord, Jesus Christ, we set foot in this land!’ These two men brought us the Bible of Jesus Christ.

5 February 1855 is an historic day, a day full of holiness, bringing good news. It was the Bible, the holy word, which freed people from their sins and freed them from oppression and colonialism. The Bible respects the basic rights of mankind, recognises the dignity of the person. No more crying, no more bloodshed, an end to discrimination and exploitation of ordinary men and women because they have been freed from repression. The Bible of Jesus Christ is the holy book which belongs to all humanity, to the people of all ethnicities, to all nations.

When the two German missionaries arrived in the Land of Papua, they met the people, befriended them, stayed there, respected the people and recognised their right to life, their dignity and treated the people of Papua as equals. They never did anything to harm the Papuan people, either physically or mentally. Gotlob and Geissler were true, loyal friends of the Papuan people, in good times and bad times. There were no differences, no barriers. They brought love, justice and equality which flowed from the Cross which they brought.

The Indonesian government’s decision to refuse to allow foreign journalists to visit Papua is in sharp contrast with the mission of the Church and the heartfelt beliefs of the Papuan people. This refusal is an integral part of the government’s policy. It is a reflection of ‘Generative Politics’ about which Mr Nugroho wrote in The Jakarta Post on 10 June 2012. According to Mr Nugroho, Generative Politics is a political stance which has paralyzed, damaged and made the conditions of the Papuan people much worse. This has been the political approach of the Indonesian government for the last fifty years. The Indonesian government has refused to allow foreign journalists to visit Papua because they have to hide these ghastly facts, the widespread poverty in Papua and the many years of brutality to which the Papuan people have been subjected.

A lengthy struggle will be needed to change government policy which has been implemented for the last five decades. Almost 330 years ago, in 1780, William Wilberforce, a member of the English parliament, waged a 20-year struggle to end slavery. As an old man, he said: ‘I realise that changing public opinion is not as easy as clapping your hands; it takes decades to achieve things. You also need patience and total commitment to achieve lasting justice, reform and final victory.

In his struggle for justice, Wilberforce also expressed the following beautiful ideas: (1) Christianity is the key to justice and well-being for a people. (2) The only people who can be trusted to struggle for peace and the nation’s well-being are those who have expressed remorse for their sins. (3) The only hope for a nation is its Christianity. I will accept no ideology that conflicts with the teachings of Christ. (4) If a nation only thinks about physical and cerebral things, they will lose their spirituality. (5) Every tyrannical action that is perpetrated in order to reinforce stability can only lead to the perpetuation of repression. (6) The commandments I have received from God have convinced me that the search for justice must be based on fear of the Almighty which does lead to anarchy and that history has shown that He is right. (7) I should at all times remember that it is my responsibility until my dying day not just to meditate but also to act. (8) The thing that has inspired me is an understanding of the existence of humanity. This is based on the opening words in the Book of Genesis which states that mankind was created in the image of the Almighty [Genesis 1:26-28].

It may very well be that the government’s decision to refuse to allow foreign journalists to visit Papua is because of recent incidents such as the hostage-taking incident in Mapenduma in 1996, the taking of a Belgian as a hostage in June 2001 and his release in August of that year, or the occasion when shots were fired at a German, Pieper Dietmar Helmut at Base G Coast on 29 May 2012 which was alleged to have been committed by an ‘an unidentified person’ (OTK). And there are a number of questions that need to be asked about the acts of violence and crimes against humanity which have occurred during the 50 years of Indonesia’s occupation of Papua.  (1) Were these actions perpetrated by a Papuan? (2) And if so, who masterminded these incidents? And who benefitted from these acts of violence?

During a conversation I had in August 2013 with General Maruf, Deputy Head of BIN, the State Intelligence Agency, I said: ‘Mr Maruf, there are many groups in Papua which have been organised by the OPM. Does anyone believe that there are sewing-machines in Papua to make Morning Star Flags? Is there a shop in the forest where it is possible to buy cloth to make Morning Star Flags? How is it possible for the OPM to get hold of so many weapons and so much ammunition? Every airport and entry point into Papua, by land, air or sea, is tightly guarded and every single thing that enters Papua is carefully examined by Indonesian security officials.’ In response, Mr Maruf said: ‘Only now do I realise there are groups in Papua which have been organised by the OPM.’

It should now be crystal clear to the reader that the kidnappings and shootings that have occurred in Papua were not committed by the genuine OPM but by a specially controlled OPM. Some readers may have read my book: Annihilation of Ethic Melanesians: Breaking the Silence about the History of Violence in West Papua (Permusnahan Etnis Melanesia: Memecah Kebisuan Sejarah Kekerasan di Papua Barat) 2007, which has been banned by the Indonesian government, by virtue of a decision of the Attorney-General. On pages 225-256, I wrote briefly about the genuine OPM and an OPM which was created by the Indonesia military and police. The violence and crimes against humanity have been used to stigmatise Papuans as separatists and are alleged to be acts of treason perpetrated by the OPM in order to create a myth portraying Papua as a region of conflict and is inaccessible to foreigners. Papua is being used as a training ground for the armed forces to get promoted, to make lots of money, a place where more and more troops are sent to combat separatism. Ottow and Geissler never did anything to stigmatise Papuans as separatists, treacherous rebels, as OPM, primitive, ignorant, backward people, cannibals, stupid and under-developed.

An intelligence expert, AC Manulang, former Director of BAKIN. Badan Inteligen Negara Indonesia, the Indonesian State Intelligence Agency, recently acknowledged ‘It is not unlikely and may often have happened that disruptive activities in various places have been masterminded from Jakarta. It is highly likely that these disturbances have been designed in Jakarta for a number of reasons. It is not logical to believe that local police chiefs would not seek the help of influential local leaders to prevent local communities from becoming uncontrollable. Action has been taken to deal with SARA [an Indonesian acronym for Social, Religious and Ethnic Disputes], in places like Maluku or other regions in eastern Indonesia. There have also been disturbances in western parts of the country. According to information I have received, there have been disturbances in Ambon, Lampung, Poso as well as in Papua. These disturbances should be regarded as serving the interest of the elite in Jakarta.’ [Indopos, Sunday 4 November 2012.]

There are other questions that need to be raised: (1) Why is it that the OPM has never kidnapped foreign missionaries who have been living for years in the interior of Papua, in places that are remote from the cities? (2) Why has the OPM never kidnapped any of the many foreign tourists who visit Papua on their own or in groups? (3) Why is it that the OPM has never kidnapped transmigrants who now live in places close to the forests and far from  the  cities, in places like Sorong, Manokwari, Nabire, Merauke or Keerom-Arso?

It is deeply distressing that State violence continues to occur in our sacred Motherland. This means that the Indonesian government and the security forces have failed to turn the indigenous Papuan people into Indonesians. Papuans have already expressed their dismay about all this on a number of occasions: (a) the Eleven Recommendations of the Papuan People’s Assembly on 9-10 June 2010. (b) The Joint Statement of Church Leaders issued on 10 January 2011. (c) The Theological Declaration of Church Leaders on 26 January 2011. (d) The Prophetic Message of Papuan Church Leaders to the President of the Republic of Indonesia adopted in Cikeas, Jakarta on 16 December 2011.

The same concerns were acknowledged by a number of member states of the United Nations: The USA, United Kingdom, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, South Korea, Japan, France, Germany, Mexico, New Zealand, Australia, Spain and Italy at a session of the UN Human Rights Council (UPR) on 23 May 2012 in Geneva, Switzerland.

Bearing these facts in mind, it is the now widely believed that the Indonesian government and the Indonesian security forces are themselves part of all this violence and that this situation has been created and kept alive so as to legitimise continued acts of violence in the Land of Papua and to utilise these conditions as an excuse to reinforce the security forces. The reason why foreign journalists are refused access to Papua is clear for all to see. It means that they can know nothing about and cannot expose the terrible truth regarding the State violence being committed against humanity, the impoverishment and annihilation of the Papuan people that has been going on for the last fifty years.


------------------------
The writer of this comment is the General Chairman of the Alliance of Baptist Churches. He is also the author of the following books:
Pemusnahan Etnis Melanesia: Memecah Kebisuan Kekerasan di Tanah Papua Barat. (See above)
 Suara Bagi Kaum Tak Bersuara. A Voice for the Voiceless.
 Integrasi Belum Selesai. Integration is Not Yet Complete.
West Papua, Persoalan Internasional. West Papua is an International Problem
Otonomi  Khusus Papua Telah Gagal. Special Autonomy for Papua Has Failed
Saya Bukan Bangsa Budak, I Am Not from a Nation of Slaves
Apakah Indonesia Menduduki dan Menjajah Bangsa Papua? Does Indonesia Occupy and Colonise the Papua People?

UNHCR Calls for Concrete Steps to Protect Refugees Through Bali Process

April 2, 2013

UNHCR: Press Release The UN Refugee Agency

VB BALI, Indonesia – UNHCR's top protection official on Tuesday welcomed a pledge by government ministers in the Asia-Pacific region to strengthen cooperation to manage irregular maritime movements in a
protection-sensitive regional approach.

The pledge came in a statement issued at the 5th Ministerial Meeting of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. Ministers and other high-level officials
from more than 40 countries in the region participated in the event on Tuesday together with representatives of the UN refugee agency, the International Organization for Migration and other groups.

Addressing the event, UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection Erika Feller noted the progress made on several fronts within the Bali Process, including the creation of the Regional Cooperation Framework and the Regional Support Office to build state capacity to respond to asylum challenges in the region. She cautioned, however, that much more remains to be done "to move beyond the language of cooperation to practical and concrete action."

She acknowledged that issues such as irregular maritime movements bring complex challenges. On the one hand, growing numbers of people are taking to the seas, risking their lives and facing exploitation in the process. On the other hand, receiving countries feel they are left to shoulder the responsibility alone.

Summing up lessons from a recent regional roundtable on irregular movements by sea, co-organized by Indonesia and UNHCR, Feller noted that unilateral action by individual countries does not work. "Refusal
to assist persons in distress at sea, regardless of who they are and how they came to be there, can lead to terrible consequences which represent a collective humanitarian failure," she emphasized.

Among the concrete steps proposed, the Assistant High Commissioner called for the development of protocols on rescue and interception at sea to support more predictable and effective ways to disembark, process and seek solutions for maritime arrivals. She recommended that resources be pre-positioned and joint support services provided, such as mobile response teams that could be deployed upon the request of states.

Above all, Feller encouraged states to support these practical actions at the highest political levels. "To be effective and sustainable, a comprehensive approach must accommodate both the state security as well as the human security dimensions of the problem," she said. "The momentum towards including asylum and refugee protection objectives as an integral part of the Bali Process agenda must not be lost."

On Twitter: http://twitter.com/JoyoIndoNews - @JoyoIndoNews and join us on Facebook: http://facebook.com/JoyoNews

 

INDONESIA: Ongoing violence in Papua and the need for dialogue

date: March 12, 2013
document id: ALRC-COS-22-13-2013
HRC section: Item 4, General Debate
Speaker: Mr. Budi Tjahjono

A Joint Oral Statement to the 22st Session of the UN Human Rights Council fromthe Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs / World Council of Churches ( CCIA/WCC), Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of Preachers), Franciscans International (FI), the International Coalition for Papua (ICP), Survival International (SI), United Evangelical Mission (UEM), Vivat International (VI), and the West Papua Netzwerk (WPN).


INDONESIA: Ongoing violence in Papua and the need for dialogue

This is a joint statement by the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs / World Council of Churches (CCIA/WCC), Dominicans for Justice and Peace (Order of Preachers), Franciscans International (FI), the International Coalition for Papua (ICP), Survival International (SI), United Evangelical Mission (UEM), Vivat International (VI), and the West Papua Netzwerk (WPN).


A wave of persecution against political activists under the cover of anti-terrorism measures since summer last year has resulted in arbitrary arrests and fabrication of charges with the aim to silence political activists and human rights defenders in the Papuan provinces of Indonesia.


On January 21st, 20 inmates of the notorious Abepura prison, in which many of Papuan currently 33 political prisoners are located, were tortured and ill-treated. The prisoners were beaten with electro wires. We welcome the removal of the prison head following interventions from rights groups. However, to end the ongoing climate of impunity in Papua, criminal proceedings need to be started against these and all other perpetrators of torture, ill-treatment, intimidation and other human rights violations.


In another case on February 15th, 7 Papuans were stopped and arrested in Depapre, Papua and later brought to the Jayapura Police station. The victims were tortured while being interrogated about contacts to political and human rights activists who already had to go into hiding for several months. While 5 of the victims were released on the following day, Daniel Gobay and Matan Klembiab were falsely charged with illegal possession of sharp weapons under the emergency regulation 12/1951 as reported by the Asian Human Rights Commission

Source Published: http://www.alrc.net/doc/mainfile.php/hrc22/749

UN as Protector or Abuser of Human Rights?

What is a colony?

It is “A region politically controlled by a distant country,” a territory and its people under the political control of a remote or foreign administration. A colony, or “non-self-governing territory”, is also external to UN membership although the occupying or foreign administrating State may be a member of the UN, see UN Charter chapter XI.

West Papua and West Papuan people become subject to a Dutch colonial claim during the 19th century and were subject to that foreign rule when the Dutch in 1962 signed an agreement asking the United Nations as a foreign power to occupy and administrate West Papua’s affairs. The agreement commonly known as the ‘New York Agreement‘ was drafted by the American government for the Netherlands, Indonesia, and the United Nations to sign.

What is a trust territory?

It is concept created in chapter 12 of the Charter (constitution) of the United Nations, it is a colony for which the United Nations and its Security Council in the form of the “Trusteeship Council” has accepted responsibility.

One type of “trust territory” is a colony which the colonial power and United Nations has voluntarily placed under the “trusteeship system”, see Article 77 part 1(c) of the UN Charter. But chapter 12 of the Charter has mistakes:

1. UN trusteeship does not require consent of the colony, and
2. a “trusteeship agreement” does not need to use the word trusteeship or tell the world’s public that the UN has made the territory subject to the trusteeship system.

What are the “General Assembly” and “Security Council”? They are organs (part) of the United Nations defined in chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the UN Charter. Only the Security Council under chapter 7 articles 42 and 48 may use UN forces, but the General Assembly can direct UN forces to occupy a colony by approving a trusteeship agreement under article 85 and chapter 12 of the UN Charter. 

Is West Papua a trust territory?

The General Assembly approved the New York Agreement in 1962 by making General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII), see 17th session of the General Assembly. Also in 1962 UN troops occupied West Papua, see UN Historical Summary and the 1962 UN Yearbook — pages 124-128.

West Papua has never been on the agenda of the UN Security Council nor has the territory been the subject of any Security Council resolution. Neither under its chosen name West Papua nor the colonial names, West New Guinea, Netherlands New Guinea, Irian Jaya, Irian Barat, nor the current Indonesian Province name.

Conclusion: Yes, West Papua is a UN trust territory because that is the only way that General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII) was able to authorise the deployment of UN troops from Pakistan to occupy the colony of West Papua.

Conclusion: Yes, when you read the requirements of chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations you will discover that the 1962 agreement is written in accordance with each of the several requirements, including the final requirement that it be approved by the General Assembly. The 1962 agreement has the form and exercises the functions of a trusteeship agreement because is is a trusteeship agreement for the United Nations to accept responsibility for West New Guinea, West Papua.

Why would the UN do this without telling the public?

Because the UN’s largest contributor the United States wanted the colony to be in the hands of Indonesia, see US Dept. of State Summary; and Indonesia would not sign the agreement if it was publicly understood that West Papua would be an UN trust territory.

When would UN trusteeship end?

The UN Charter makes one provision for ending its international responsibility in article 78 of the UN Charter:

Article 78
The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.

Did the “Act of Free Choice” change anything?

No, the event which Indonesia calls the “Act of Free Choice” was not recognised by the United Nations (either the General Assembly or International Court of Justice) as either a referendum or a display of “self-determination” by the West Papuan people. It does not matter what Indonesia says, nor does it matter what Jakarta’s supporters like Australian Senator for New South Wales Bob Carr say. Only the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction to say with authority if the people of West Papua have granted their sovereignty to a foreign power, and without a ICJ decision only a majority agreement by the UN General Assembly would have any meaning at the United Nations.

The 1962 agreement (the New York Agreement) does describe the normal requirement for recognition of the people’s decision by the UN General Assembly majority; a vote by all male and female adults who are not foreign nationals.

What are the international obligations of the United Nations to a trust territory?

Article 76
The basic objectives of the trusteeship system, in accordance with the Purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present Charter, shall be:
to further international peace and security;
to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;
to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world; and
to ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of Article 80.

Article 87
The General Assembly and, under its authority, the Trusteeship Council, in carrying out their functions, may:
consider reports submitted by the administering authority;
accept petitions and examine them in consultation with the administering authority;
provide for periodic visits to the respective trust territories at times agreed upon with the administering authority; and
take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship agreements.

Article 88

The Trusteeship Council shall formulate a questionnaire on the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of each trust territory, and the administering authority for each trust territory within the competence of the General Assembly shall make an annual report to the General Assembly upon the basis of such questionnaire.

General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)
1514 (XV). Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples
The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm …
Declares that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
947th plenary meeting,
14 December 1960.

---

But, can people say West Papua is not a trust territory?

A common mistake is to look for a word formular, a specific phase you would like to see in a document; but there is no requirement in Chapter XII for an agreement to use the word “trusteeship”. A logical reason neither the New York Agreement or the General Assembly approval resolution 1752(XVII) use the word trusteeship is because Indonesia was uncomfortable with the legal reality; Indonesia would not sign the agreement unless the UN and the agreement did not use the word trusteeship. Another mistake by people new to the trusteeship question, is to confuse the ‘System’ of UN Charter chapter XII with the ‘Council’ of UN Charter chapter XIII. There is no need for the Trusteeship Council to be the UN administrator, and in fact Article 81 of the Charter requires the agreement to “designate the authority which will exercise the administration of the trust territory.” The creation of the UNTEA was a means of satisfying the requirements of Chapter XII while not putting the colony under the control of the Trusteeship Council which Indonesia would not accept, and without putting the UN administration under Indonesian control which the Netherlands would not accept. This is ALSO the reason that article 12 of the New York Agreement gave the UN the option of allowing Indonesian administration or not, because the Dutch insisted the UN had to have the option.

A third common mistake is to look to un.org web pages expecting that those are authoritative sources of information; but they are not. All the web pages at un.org are covered by disclaimers in their copyright and terms of use policy statements; the website clearly warns users that they use the information there at their own risk. Most importantly, the office workers writing the web pages and who assembled the Non-self-governing territory lists are not lawyers putting their names to the un.org web page claims denying the colonial status of West Papua.

Only the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction to decide if West Papua is a trust territory, but common sense says West Papua is, and the media should be asking “Is West Papua a trust territory?”

Technically this means the current President of the Trust Territory under rule 1 of the Council’s rules of procedure should be calling an immediate meeting of the Trusteeship Council to exercise General Assembly resolution 171 (III) so the ICJ can answer the question.

It also means every member of the UN has a moral and probably legal obligation to transmit their wish for the General Assembly to ask the ICJ the same question.

As a member of the Security Council and neighbour to West Papua, Australia should be eager to fulfil its obligations by asking the question at the Security Council. But is Australia a honest UN member or will it put its trade relationship with Indonesia ahead of regional human rights?

Who are the members of the Trusteeship Council? The members of the Security Council plus whichever UN member is in occupation of trust territory; see chapter 13 of the UN Charter.

The last statement by the United Nations about the territorial status of West Papua was in a document describing Indonesia as the “current administrator.” Please remember that ALL the web-pages at un.org are covered by UN disclaimers to the effect: “This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. The United Nations does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk.”

Please also be aware that Indonesia and Reuters have been publishing misinformation about a UN General Assembly resolution in 1969, and that too many academics fail to read the document themselves because they assume Reuters understood and revealed the entire story… General Assembly resolution 2504 (XXIV) says nothing about the sovereignty of West Papua, and does not claim to have revoked UN trust status of the territory which was and still is being administrated by Indonesia pending an “act of self-determination” when the UN will hopefully acknowledge the sovereign choice of the West Papuan people.

The United Nations issue

The United Nations appears to be in abeyance of the United Nations Charter and has been since 1962, which would be issues the media could query in New York and Geneva.

By United Nations action and omission of actions, human rights have been suspended in the colony of West New Guinea (West Papua) since it became a UN administrated colony (trust territory) in 1962. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed, unknown numbers have been raped, and a nation has been denied its freedom (self-determination) for fifty years.

Under the United Nations Charter, conditions in every colony must be reported to the organisation either under article 73(e) of the Charter, or under articles 87 and 88 of the Charter if it is a “trust territory”. But the United Nations ceased monitoring conditions in the colony of West New Guinea (West Papua) in 1962, and has not attempted to implement articles 73(e), 87, or 88 of the UN Charter since then.

Why? Gold, money, profits, the common reason for turning a blind eye to genocide and colonial mining.

Background to the American mine and New York Agreement

The colony has the world’s richest gold and copper deposit, Ertsberg, which the Rockefellers and other shareholders of the Freeport corporation want. In 1961, a Freeport director Robert Lovett got his friend McGeorge Bundy appointed as the national security adviser in Washington DC from where they could influence US foreign policy to their benefit.

Legally, the United Nations can not buy or sell people (slavery) but under chapter 12 of the UN Charter it can become the administrator of an entire colony until they are allowed to decide their sovereignty, self-determination by public vote which still has not been allowed in West Papua.

Like any con-artist or liar, the corporations and their friends told different stories to different people, they told the US President that sacrificing West Papua would save the world from communism, they told the other UN members that sacrificing West Papua would save the world from war with Indonesia, and they told the lawyers that the transfer of administration from the Netherlands to the United Nations was for benefit of the Papuan people. Those were conflicting lies. The truth is simple, the Freeport directors wanted a cheap mining licence for West Papua’s gold, copper, silver, etc. which they purchased from General Suharto in 1967. They had no intention of allowing the “act of self-determination” promised to be allowed by 1969.

The mine is worth billions of dollars to the Indonesian Generals and the American shareholders, they had no intention of allowing the “act of self-determination” defined in the 1962 UN agreement. And they will still do anything they can to prevent West Papua being mentioned at the UN General Assembly.

When the UN General Assembly made resolution 1752 (XVII), the UN officer workers were required to add West Papua to names of Trust territories for discussion by the UN Trusteeship Council (Security Council members). For fifty years the friends of the Freeport and Bechtel corporations have been asking the United Nations office workers to look the other way, to prolong colonial rule and mining of West Papua (West New Guinea). To — arguably — allow murder, rape, and mining in West Papua; and the UN administrative staff have done so.

Freeport was the first foreign mining license General Suharto signed and businessmen continue to make untold billions of dollars from the arrangement. Those businessmen can and do exercise influence in Washington and among the UN General Assembly membership.

The West Papuan people had already chosen independence, but the American media did not report this. Electoral rolls had been created and in January 1961 the colony elected representatives for a New Guinea Council which in April 1961 became their part of the administration of West New Guinea. Six months later the New Guinea Council heard of the American plan, and to prevent the terror of Indonesian rule it created this manifesto of independence declaring their people’s wish to be free, to become an independent nation called West Papua which wanted to “live in peace and to contribute to the maintenance of world peace.”

America and then the UN has ignored the West Papuan wish for freedom, for human rights, for their independence.

The request — action you can take

PLEASE help raise the issue of West Papua at the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Bureaucrats, dishonest people, and ignorant people will try to stop you and stop any NGO from raising West Papua at the United Nations. But please do not let that stop your efforts — please email me with news of any headway or road-blocks which you encounter.

Although the UN is designed for benefit of its members and not citizens of the world, there are avenues for raising matters with the organisation:

• You can lobby UN members to raise West Papua at the UN General Assembly. For example the Vanuatu parliament endorsed an agenda item about West Papua to be faxed to the office of the UN Secretary-General in 2009 until a Indonesian funded company offered Vanuatu a business project in exchange for dropping the fax.
• 
  Even if you don’t want to help West Papua, you can get millions of dollars for your country by convincing it to announce that it is going to submit a West Papua agenda item for the next UN General Assembly, in response to which the Indonesian and American businessmen will rush to offer your nation money in exchange for not sending the fax.
•  
• the Trusteeship Council still exists and its current President is the French representative elected in 2009, Mr Nicolas de Rivière. If you successfully lobby him, he can call a meeting of the Trusteeship Council at any time he deems necessary, and the Council has been granted permission by General Assembly resolution 171 (II) to ask the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for advice on matters such as West Papua.
•  
• I have been told that the World Federation of United Nations associations have been granted observer status at the General Assembly and are allowed to submit advice on matters the Federation believes to be of importance for the General Assembly. So by joining your local United Nations Association, you could begin to lobby for the Federation to raise the issue of West Papua with the General Assembly.

The Agreement

Under the United Nations charter, chapter 12, the organization can become the administrator of a colony pending decision by the colony whether it wants independence or not; “self-determination” of its sovereignty. Also under chapter 12 of the charter the UN can allow one of its members to be the administrator pending the vote on self-determination.

In September 1961, the Netherlands announced that it wanted the colony to become a United Nations trust territory, without Indonesia being allowed to occupy Papua. But America refused to support UN trusteeship unless Indonesia became the administrator of the UN territory.

In New York, America drafted an agreement which in accord with chapter 12 of the UN charter took effect when the UN General Assembly approved the deal. The United Nations in October 1962 asserted a hostile occupation which denied permission for public rallies in Papua and refused to hear petitions under article 87 of the UN charter; and as administrator, the UN in May 1963 chose to allow Indonesia to occupy and administrate the colony pending an “act of self-determination” no later than 1969.

The agreement became a “trusteeship agreement” when the United Nations General Assembly endorsed the agreement in resolution 1752 (XVII), as required of a trusteeship agreement under article 85 of the UN charter.

But in 1967, Indonesia sold mining rights of the colony to the Freeport corporation.

To enforce that mining arrangement, neither Indonesia or America would allow West Papua to become free. To ensure America would ignore the struggle for freedom, the newly appointed Henry Kissinger gave advice — an adviser who years later became a member of the board of the Freeport mining corporation.

No “act of self-determination” as promised in the agreement has ever been allowed in the colony, and neither Indonesia nor the United Nations Secretary-General have yet exercised their parts of the agreement (articles 14-20, and article 21 of the agreement).

Instead of fulfilling the trusteeship agreement, an Indonesian General in 1969 selected 1022 men whom he alleged represented the colony for an Indonesian process he called an “act of free choice”. Purportedly the choice was to either raise their hands when told or their families would be killed and their villages burnt to the ground. Instead of expressing outrage at the inhuman conduct of the “act of free choice” the UN General Assembly made resolution 2504 saying Indonesia had conducted something called “act of free choice” and neither Indonesia or the Netherlands were objecting.

The rule of law requires that the United Nations and Indonesia allow the “act of self-determination” they promised in the New York Agreement.

Trusteeship

The Charter of the United Nations is written so that once the UN becomes the administrator of any colony, the territory will remain a “trust territory” even if the UN decides to allow one of its members to take over the administration of the trust territory. The only provision which the UN charter makes for “trust territory” status to end is article 78: “The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on respect for the principle of sovereign equality.”

In other words, West Papua will remain a UN Trust territory until West Papua has determined its sovereignty (an act of self-determination), and has been accepted as a sovereign United Nations member by the other members. Or the International Court of Justice exercises its sole judicial jurisdiction to the same effect.

The rule of law requires that the United Nations members allow the “self-government” and “peace” they promised in the United Nations Charter.

The rule of law requires the UN members to protect the human right of “self-determination” promised in General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), and resolution 1541 (XV).

The rule of law requires the United Nations to allow the “act of self-determination” it promised in the trusteeship agreement.

As was documented in a US Department of State record, America for its own benefit created this Agreement signed by the Netherlands, United Nations, and Indonesia agreeing on terms for their occupation and administration of West New Guinea as a colony until the Secretary-General of the United Nations reports “to the General Assembly on the conduct of the act of self-determination and the results thereof” and “The parties … recognize and abide by the results of the act of self-determination.”

It is not relevant to the United Nations territorial status of West Papua whether agreement has yet been completed, but as it happens the agreement will not be completed until a UN Secretary General can fulfil the above mentioned requirement of noting an “act of self-determination” as required by article 21 of the agreement.

As an international agreement involving the United Nations, only the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to resolve any debate if it exists.

In legal terms, Indonesia abandoned its claim of sovereignty in 1962 by signing the New York Agreement agreement in exchange for administrating the colony for up to seven years before allowing an “act of self-determination” as defined in the agreement.

Indonesia has NO RIGHT to sell mining licenses to Freeport or BP, no right to fly the Indonesian flag over the Morning Star. Sovereignty and property rights belong to the West Papuan people, it always has, and they are NOT property to be traded between foreign powers.

West Papua became subject to the Trusteeship system when the General Assembly including Indonesia and the Netherlands supported resolution 1752 (XVII).

The last United Nations statement

The last UN statement about West Papua free of disclaimers appears to have been in this document from the 1970s which states:

Administrative History
The United Nations Temporary Authority in West Irian (UNTEA) was formed to administer West Irian, which is located on the island of New Guinea. In 1963 Dutch New Guinea became Irian Barat, which in 1973 changed its name to Irian Jaya and is currently administered by Indonesia. UNTEA administered West Irian from October 1962 to May 1963. The administrator was Djalal Abdoh.

Please note that the web-pages being published at un.org are subject to disclaimers in their “terms of use” and or “copyright” notices; such as: “This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers. The United Nations does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other information shall also be at the User’s own risk.”

A side-note: 1969 (but important for Ban Ki-moon) The “act of free choice” event in 1969 is irrelevant because it was not an act of self-determination, nor did the Secretary-General or General Assembly claim it was.

The events in 1969 were irrelevant because they did not affect the sovereignty of West Papua and therefore did not affect trust territory status. In fact the same administrator, Indonesia, remained in administration of the colony.

As it happens, the New York Agreement was not successfully concluded. Although the General Assembly in Resolution 2504 (XXIV) mistakenly alleged the Secretary-General had completed his task, but that task in article 21 of the agreement is not completed until the Secretary-General reports on an act of self-determination.¹

The Petition

I have drafted this petition which I invite members of the West Papuan community if you wish to, to endorse and publicly deliver copies of the letter directly to the President and members of the United Nations Trusteeship Council. I believe West Papua is a United Nations trust territory which the United Nations Trusteeship Council should be asking about and should be asking the UN Special Committee of Decolonization about.

Legal concepts: Sovereignty

Neither the Netherlands nor the United Nations owned the sovereignty of the Papuan people and their homelands.

Just as Americans exercised self-determination in 1776, so, too, does every nation have the right to chose independence or to be subject to some other governance.

Neither the Netherlands nor the United Nations could give Indonesia something which they did not own; the Agreement was a grant to allow each to occupy and enforce control of the colony, but it also was an agreement to allow and recognise self-determination.

Sovereignty still belongs to the people of West New Guinea until they decide it belongs to their own or some other government, a process called self-determination which the United Nations has not yet recognised to have been exercised.

Jakarta had no legal right to sell a mining license to Freeport in 1967 or to BP now. The Indonesian Generals have no legal entitlement to cut down the forests of West Papua. And Jakarta has no legal right to try and divide West Papua against itself, or to delay self-determination contrary to it’s signature on the Agreement and contrary to it’s alleged acceptance of United Nations General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV).

Published: http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/03/un-as-