Clifton
In many cases, conflict in the workplace just seems to be a fact of life. We've all seen situations where different people with different goals and needs have come into conflict. effective conflict resolution skills can make the difference between positive and negative outcomes.
The Sixth Indonesia President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was elected in October 2004, has indicated that he is committed to implementing the special autonomy law for West Papua. The 2001 special autonomy law for West Papua was enacted in a move to assuage Papua’s desire for independence. We realize that the special autonomy law implementation still lack of Perfect because the core of problems in Papua are how to make trust building between Jakarta and Papua. If we discussed about Papua Road Map: Negotiating the Past, Improving the Present and Securing the Future. Editor: Muridan S Widjojo, Jakarta 2009. Published by LIPI, Yayasan TIFA and Yayasan Obor, stakeholders in Jakarta and Papua seems not agree if should involved international. Moreover, Indonesia has many experience in solving problems in Ace, Timor Leste, and Ambon, Special for Papua, The Indonesia Government seems not agree if invite international group as mediator in Jakarta-Papua dialogue.
As part of a move by Jakarta to reduce the powers of the central administration in the wake of Suharto’s downfall, a law to devolve certain powers to district administrations throughout the country was enacted. In recognition of the many problems that had dogged Aceh’s relations with Jakarta, a special autonomy law for Aceh was adopted in 2001, Law 18/2001. In the same year, West Papua was also granted special autonomy under Law 21/2001. In both cases, these special autonomy laws met with widespread dissatisfaction. According to the Papua Road Map, both laws lacked legitimacy in the eyes of their people because they had been drafted without the involvement of local political and social organisations and parties. It was not until Jakarta entered into talks in Helsinki with the Aceh independence movement, facilitated by the former president of Finland, that an agreement was reached between the two sides, resulting in a law on the Governance of Aceh. Shortly prior to the agreement, Aceh was devastated by a tsunami in December 2004 that left some 140,000 people dead, which increased the pressure on all sides to end the conflict.
The 2001 special autonomy law for West Papua was enacted in a move to assuage Papua’s desire for independence. It was regarded with deep suspicion by Indonesian nationalists and the armed forces. Having already been stung by the loss of East Timor, they regarded special autonomy (OTSUS) as an unwarranted gift to Papuan separatists. But neither were West Papuan nationalists satisfied with OTSUS, in particular for failing to confront their demand for independence.
Papua Road Map is the product of several years of research undertaken in West Papua by academics at LIPI, the Indonesian Institute of Sciences. According to the Papua Road Map, this was a missed opportunity. Because of the failure of the Indonesian side to recognize the traditional Papuan approach to negotiations and its failure to consider the possibility of reaching a compromise, the breakdown in the talks resulted in the conflict continuing up to the present day, as well as a deepening mistrust between the two sides. Talks must be regarded as involving a long process. The Indonesian side needs to recognize that there are serious problems in Papua.
As a prelude to its evaluation of the prospects for dialogue, the Papua Road Map gives an account of the impact of development in West Papua. Far from benefitting the local people, this has resulted in their marginalization and discrimination.
The education system is very unsatisfactory and has failed to produce Papuans with a decent level of education. Although plenty of schools have been built, there is a serious lack of teachers and school books. The LIPI team concluded that education is worse today than in the 1970s, largely because the private schools which were run by the churches have been closed down, giving way to _”_presidential instruction” (OTSUS) schools of indifferent quality. They point out that teachers produced under the earlier system were more dedicated to their vocation than those produced today. Certainly, a great level of dedication is required for teachers to live in remote villagers where they lack the facilities to which they are accustomed. (Most if not all the teachers are recruited from outside Papua.) The fees for local primary schools are far too high for many Papuans and the schools are too far away for the children to go to school every day, with little in the way of transportation.
According to a survey undertaken in 2006, 73,729 of the 432,122 children aged 7-15 years, of whom most were concentrated in the Central Highlands, had never been to school. While the statistics would suggest that the number of teachers is adequate, they rarely teach at schools in the interior as most of them prefer to live in urban areas. Many head teachers simply don’t bother to visit their school unless exams are taking place. A teacher at a secondary school in Merauke is quoted as saying that she couldn’t teach children who had already graduated from primary school because they couldn’t read, write, or count. In Yahukimo district, according to the 2006 survery, were more than 47 students per teacher.
Moreover, the allocation of OTSUS funds for education was far below that required by law. Education should have received 30 percent of the budget but its allocation in the provincial budget for 2008 was less than five percent.
As for economic empowerment, Papuans do not have the necessary business skills to compete with people who have migrated to the territory from other parts of Indonesia. Whereas in 1959, outsiders accounted for a mere 2 percent of the population, demographic experts expect it to increase to 53.5 percent by 2011. Although 48% of the villages in Papua province, and 37% of those in West Papua province, are below the poverty line, the territory is extremely rich in natural resources. A foreign multinational, Freeport-McMoran, is mining Papua’s copper and gold and is the largest taxpayer in the country. BP has also just begun to exploit Papua’s natural gas.
In order to address peacefully the injustice in West Papua Jakarta and Papua must do :
Seeking just and peaceful solution through an all-inclusive dialogue. All stakeholders representing Center and local government and the Papuans should participate in this dialogue. Such a dialogue would be a peaceful means for the Indonesia authorities and the Papuans to reach a common understanding on the problems that have to be addressedand a common agreement on the role of stakeholders.
The Indonesia government should encourage to implement without any delay and carry out supervisory institution to supervise implementation law number 21/2001 on Special Autonomy for West Papua for it addresses the neglect and marginalization of the socio-economic in Papua.
Dialogue should proceed through four stages: a national dialogue between the central government and Papuan representatives, dialogue between the Papuan representatives, dialogue within the Papuan elite who will be in charge of the political processes, and then dialogue between the Indonesian government Papuan representatives not involve international side in solution the Papua problems because Papua is part of NKRI. To incarnate trust and capacity building local government, all stakeholders in Jakarta and papua should Promote the capacity and opportunity of civil society organizations, to advocate for justice and ensure respect human rights in Papua.
Source : PapuaToday.com March 13, 2010
Read More..
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Opinion. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label Opinion. Tampilkan semua postingan
Minggu, 14 Maret 2010
Sabtu, 02 Januari 2010
Jakarta-Papua talk still possible
Neles Tebay,
Despite the killing of Kelly Kwalik by Indonesian Mobile Brigade Police on Dec.16, 2009, at Timika, the capital of Mimika regeny, Papua, the Indonesian government under the leadership of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the Pa-puans have not yet shut down the window for dialogue.
A dialogue between Jakarta and Papua is important for both parties to jointly reach a peaceful and negotiated solution to the Papua conflict. From the Papuans side, they have already demonstrated their commitment and willingness for a peaceful dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
The world has witnessed that during and after the Kwalik's burial in Timika town, Papuans were able to calm themselves. They did not retaliate against the police. There was no atrocity initiated by the Papuans. The Papuans have rejected violent approaches, such as killing, for it will never settle the conflict. They have already chosen dialogue as a civilized way to reach a dignified solution to the Papua conflict.
The Papuans publicly announced they wanted to settle the Papua conflict through a civilized way, through a neutral third party, which will mediate the dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. Kwalik's assassination has even renewed and strengthened their commitment to dialogue, as clearly communicated in the speech of the chairperson of the Papuan Customary Council (DAP).
It is the belief of the Papuans that the Indonesian authority will not keep repeating its violent approach and therefore choose a civilized way, such as dialogue, to settle the Papua conflict. This belief is based on the fact that the government under the leadership of Yudhoyono has successfully settled the government's armed conflict with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), through a third party-mediated dialogue with the signing of Helsinki Agreement in August 2005.
Yudhoyono has been reelected for the second term of his presidency. Yudhoyono's reelection gives hope that the government under his leadership will handle the Papua conflict through dialogue with the Papuans, as was done in Aceh.
During his first term, Yudhoyono made several public statements announcing the government's commitment to settle the Papua conflict through dialogue.
However, the promised dialogue has not taken place. The Papuans understood well that the President was not able to initiate a dialogue with them because his political party, the Democratic Party, was new and small. Yudhoyono might have been reluctant to settle the Papuan conflict through dialogue because his political support in the House of Representatives was weak and his attention was focused on the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement in Aceh.
For the second term of his presidency, Yudhoyono has very strong political backing in the House. His political party won the April legislative elections and his party has formed coalition with some other big and influential parties. Therefore, there is less possibility for him to face resistance in the House.
Yudhoyono, at the same time as being the head of state and government, is also the Commander-In-Chief of the Indonesian army.
It is in the second term of his presidency, then, that it seems proper for him to settle the Papua conflict through dialogue as all of the country's power now at his disposal.
Yudhoyono's initiative for the dialogue between Jakarta and Papua will certainly be supported by the House, the government, and the Indonesian Military (TNI).
That's why the Papuans see that dialogue between Jakarta and Papua is still possible, particularly during Yudhoyono's presidency.
Once the Jakarta-based government engages in dialogue with the Papuans, and the Papua conflict is settled without bloodshed, then this peaceful settlement to the conflict would be the Yudhoyono's legacy.
The history of Indonesia will record and tell that he was the only Indonesian president who was able to settle peacefully and permanently, the Papua conflict through dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
Not like in Aceh, where former vice president Jusuf Kalla was also involved, the peaceful settlement to the Papua conflict is and will be the Yudhoyono's work. It will be recognized his own idea.
A dialogue between Jakarta and Papua will really be considered as a manifestation of the Yudhoyono's genuineness and personal initiative.
As a result, he will be recognized internationally as a man of peace. It may even win him a Nobel Peace Price in the years to come.
It is needless to say that dialogue between Jakarta and Papua will certainly bring about a good reputation for the country of Indonesia before the eyes of international community. Therefore there is still hope and possibility for the present government to take the initiative for dialogue to settle the Papua conflict.
The writer is a lecturer at the Fajar Timur school of Philosophy and Theology in Abepura, Papua. Read More..
Despite the killing of Kelly Kwalik by Indonesian Mobile Brigade Police on Dec.16, 2009, at Timika, the capital of Mimika regeny, Papua, the Indonesian government under the leadership of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono and the Pa-puans have not yet shut down the window for dialogue.
A dialogue between Jakarta and Papua is important for both parties to jointly reach a peaceful and negotiated solution to the Papua conflict. From the Papuans side, they have already demonstrated their commitment and willingness for a peaceful dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
The world has witnessed that during and after the Kwalik's burial in Timika town, Papuans were able to calm themselves. They did not retaliate against the police. There was no atrocity initiated by the Papuans. The Papuans have rejected violent approaches, such as killing, for it will never settle the conflict. They have already chosen dialogue as a civilized way to reach a dignified solution to the Papua conflict.
The Papuans publicly announced they wanted to settle the Papua conflict through a civilized way, through a neutral third party, which will mediate the dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. Kwalik's assassination has even renewed and strengthened their commitment to dialogue, as clearly communicated in the speech of the chairperson of the Papuan Customary Council (DAP).
It is the belief of the Papuans that the Indonesian authority will not keep repeating its violent approach and therefore choose a civilized way, such as dialogue, to settle the Papua conflict. This belief is based on the fact that the government under the leadership of Yudhoyono has successfully settled the government's armed conflict with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), through a third party-mediated dialogue with the signing of Helsinki Agreement in August 2005.
Yudhoyono has been reelected for the second term of his presidency. Yudhoyono's reelection gives hope that the government under his leadership will handle the Papua conflict through dialogue with the Papuans, as was done in Aceh.
During his first term, Yudhoyono made several public statements announcing the government's commitment to settle the Papua conflict through dialogue.
However, the promised dialogue has not taken place. The Papuans understood well that the President was not able to initiate a dialogue with them because his political party, the Democratic Party, was new and small. Yudhoyono might have been reluctant to settle the Papuan conflict through dialogue because his political support in the House of Representatives was weak and his attention was focused on the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement in Aceh.
For the second term of his presidency, Yudhoyono has very strong political backing in the House. His political party won the April legislative elections and his party has formed coalition with some other big and influential parties. Therefore, there is less possibility for him to face resistance in the House.
Yudhoyono, at the same time as being the head of state and government, is also the Commander-In-Chief of the Indonesian army.
It is in the second term of his presidency, then, that it seems proper for him to settle the Papua conflict through dialogue as all of the country's power now at his disposal.
Yudhoyono's initiative for the dialogue between Jakarta and Papua will certainly be supported by the House, the government, and the Indonesian Military (TNI).
That's why the Papuans see that dialogue between Jakarta and Papua is still possible, particularly during Yudhoyono's presidency.
Once the Jakarta-based government engages in dialogue with the Papuans, and the Papua conflict is settled without bloodshed, then this peaceful settlement to the conflict would be the Yudhoyono's legacy.
The history of Indonesia will record and tell that he was the only Indonesian president who was able to settle peacefully and permanently, the Papua conflict through dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
Not like in Aceh, where former vice president Jusuf Kalla was also involved, the peaceful settlement to the Papua conflict is and will be the Yudhoyono's work. It will be recognized his own idea.
A dialogue between Jakarta and Papua will really be considered as a manifestation of the Yudhoyono's genuineness and personal initiative.
As a result, he will be recognized internationally as a man of peace. It may even win him a Nobel Peace Price in the years to come.
It is needless to say that dialogue between Jakarta and Papua will certainly bring about a good reputation for the country of Indonesia before the eyes of international community. Therefore there is still hope and possibility for the present government to take the initiative for dialogue to settle the Papua conflict.
The writer is a lecturer at the Fajar Timur school of Philosophy and Theology in Abepura, Papua. Read More..
Kamis, 24 Desember 2009
The killing of Kelly Kwalik and Papua conflict
Neles Tebay
Kelly Kwalik was recognized as a prominent Papuan leader of the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement (OPM). He resisted Indonesia’s rule over Papua until the last day of his life, Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009.
He was shot to death by the Indonesian Mobile Brigade Police in Timika, the capital of Mimika regency, Papua.
In the absence of Kwalik, the police can easily justify the killing by linking him with allegations of misconduct.
Police might link Kwalik to the series of shootings near Timika over the past six months targeting the operations of the US mining company, Freeport-McMoran.
Kwalik might be accused of having ordered the kidnapping of the two Belgian journalists who were released after two months in 2001.
They might allege he was involved in the killing two US Freeport employees in 2001. The list can be made longer by adding other allegations against Kwalik.
Despite the allegations, he was killed neither during a war nor in an exchange of fire.
Indeed, he was assassinated in a time of peace in a raid conducted by the police.
Since he was assassinated in a time of peace, Kwalik’s death might not be the final goal of the killing.
The killing is simply a means to achieve a certain goal.
Kwalik could have been killed deliberately in order to address a particular problem and to achieve a certain goal. What goals could be achieved through this killing? There are two possibilities:
The first is that Kwalik was possibly killed to put an end to the attacks initiated in June 2009 targeting Freeport mining operations.
Police might have considered Kwalik as the main cause of the attacks, although he denied any responsibility.
Therefore, the police might have decided to eliminate Kwalik to address the security problem within the Freeport concession area.
However, the truth is that despite its investigation, underway since June, the police to date have not been able to identify those parties responsible for the attacks.
Freeport-McMoran Copper and Gold Corporation has long been linked to human rights abuses involving Indonesian troops who secure the company’s facilities.
Making Kwalik a scapegoat then, only serves to mask the failure of Indonesian authorities to credibly resolve the case.
If the above analysis is true, then the killing of Kwalik will not resolve the security problem in the Freeport consession area.
Therefore, sooner or later, the attacks will happen again in the same area, unless all parties demanding protection money from Freeport are satisfied with the huge amount of money.
The second possibility is that Kwalik was assassinated to settle the conflict between the Indonesian government (Jakarta) and the Papuans (Papua) which has been going on from 1963 until today. Police might have considered Kwalik the main cause of the conflict.
Therefore the best way chosen by the police to settle the conflict was by assassinating Kwalik in a raid.
The questions should be: Is it true that Kwalik was the main cause of the conflict between Jakarta and Papua?
In order to answer this question, we need to explore the root cause of the conflict: What is (are) the main cause(s) of the unsettled Papua conflict?
The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) has conducted research for four years on the conflict between Jakarta and Papua and identified, in the book entitled Papua Road Map published in 2009, four main problems as the main causes of the conflict.
The first problem would be the government’s failures in development, particularly in the area of education, health care, infrastructure, and people’s economic development.
Its indicator is that many Papuans remain living under the poverty line, despite the wealth of natural resources in Papua.
Second is the marginalization of, and discrimination against, the indigenous Papuans under Indonesian domination.
Third, the human rights abuses allegedly committed by the Indonesian security forces since May 1, 1963 until today.
The fourth problem is the different interpretation of the history of integration of Papua into the Republic of Indonesia.
As of today the conflict between Jakarta and Papua remains unsettled because these four identified problems have not yet been addressed.
So it would have been a great mistake if Indonesian security forces thought the assassination of Kwalik was the solution to the Papua conflict.
It is necessary for the Indonesian government to be reminded again that the killing of Kwalik and other Papuan rebel leaders will never overcome any of the four identified problems.
Nobody in Papua believes that the assassination of Kwalik settles neither the security problems around the Freeport mining area nor the conflict between the government and the Papuans.
Having rejected the violent approach, the Papuans have already started discussing the possibility of having a neutral, third-party mediated dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. Despite the assassination of Kwalik, the Papuans will keep moving toward a dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
In the wake of this killing, will the government finally engage in dialogue with the Papuans to settle the Papua conflict by addressing the four identified problems?
The writer is a lecturer at the Fajar Timur School of Philosophy and Theology in Abepura, Papua.
Read More..
Kelly Kwalik was recognized as a prominent Papuan leader of the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement (OPM). He resisted Indonesia’s rule over Papua until the last day of his life, Wednesday, Dec. 16, 2009.
He was shot to death by the Indonesian Mobile Brigade Police in Timika, the capital of Mimika regency, Papua.
In the absence of Kwalik, the police can easily justify the killing by linking him with allegations of misconduct.
Police might link Kwalik to the series of shootings near Timika over the past six months targeting the operations of the US mining company, Freeport-McMoran.
Kwalik might be accused of having ordered the kidnapping of the two Belgian journalists who were released after two months in 2001.
They might allege he was involved in the killing two US Freeport employees in 2001. The list can be made longer by adding other allegations against Kwalik.
Despite the allegations, he was killed neither during a war nor in an exchange of fire.
Indeed, he was assassinated in a time of peace in a raid conducted by the police.
Since he was assassinated in a time of peace, Kwalik’s death might not be the final goal of the killing.
The killing is simply a means to achieve a certain goal.
Kwalik could have been killed deliberately in order to address a particular problem and to achieve a certain goal. What goals could be achieved through this killing? There are two possibilities:
The first is that Kwalik was possibly killed to put an end to the attacks initiated in June 2009 targeting Freeport mining operations.
Police might have considered Kwalik as the main cause of the attacks, although he denied any responsibility.
Therefore, the police might have decided to eliminate Kwalik to address the security problem within the Freeport concession area.
However, the truth is that despite its investigation, underway since June, the police to date have not been able to identify those parties responsible for the attacks.
Freeport-McMoran Copper and Gold Corporation has long been linked to human rights abuses involving Indonesian troops who secure the company’s facilities.
Making Kwalik a scapegoat then, only serves to mask the failure of Indonesian authorities to credibly resolve the case.
If the above analysis is true, then the killing of Kwalik will not resolve the security problem in the Freeport consession area.
Therefore, sooner or later, the attacks will happen again in the same area, unless all parties demanding protection money from Freeport are satisfied with the huge amount of money.
The second possibility is that Kwalik was assassinated to settle the conflict between the Indonesian government (Jakarta) and the Papuans (Papua) which has been going on from 1963 until today. Police might have considered Kwalik the main cause of the conflict.
Therefore the best way chosen by the police to settle the conflict was by assassinating Kwalik in a raid.
The questions should be: Is it true that Kwalik was the main cause of the conflict between Jakarta and Papua?
In order to answer this question, we need to explore the root cause of the conflict: What is (are) the main cause(s) of the unsettled Papua conflict?
The Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) has conducted research for four years on the conflict between Jakarta and Papua and identified, in the book entitled Papua Road Map published in 2009, four main problems as the main causes of the conflict.
The first problem would be the government’s failures in development, particularly in the area of education, health care, infrastructure, and people’s economic development.
Its indicator is that many Papuans remain living under the poverty line, despite the wealth of natural resources in Papua.
Second is the marginalization of, and discrimination against, the indigenous Papuans under Indonesian domination.
Third, the human rights abuses allegedly committed by the Indonesian security forces since May 1, 1963 until today.
The fourth problem is the different interpretation of the history of integration of Papua into the Republic of Indonesia.
As of today the conflict between Jakarta and Papua remains unsettled because these four identified problems have not yet been addressed.
So it would have been a great mistake if Indonesian security forces thought the assassination of Kwalik was the solution to the Papua conflict.
It is necessary for the Indonesian government to be reminded again that the killing of Kwalik and other Papuan rebel leaders will never overcome any of the four identified problems.
Nobody in Papua believes that the assassination of Kwalik settles neither the security problems around the Freeport mining area nor the conflict between the government and the Papuans.
Having rejected the violent approach, the Papuans have already started discussing the possibility of having a neutral, third-party mediated dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. Despite the assassination of Kwalik, the Papuans will keep moving toward a dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.
In the wake of this killing, will the government finally engage in dialogue with the Papuans to settle the Papua conflict by addressing the four identified problems?
The writer is a lecturer at the Fajar Timur School of Philosophy and Theology in Abepura, Papua.
Read More..
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)
