By Duncan Graham in Malang, East Java

There were ten stories in a Google Alert media feed last week for “Indonesia-Australia”.

One covered illegal fishing in the Indo-Pacific claiming economic losses of more than US$6 billion a year — important indeed.

Another was an update on the plight of New Zealand pilot Philip Mehrtens, held hostage since February 7 by the Tentara Pembebasan Nasional Papua Barat (TPNPB-West Papua National Liberation Army).

This is the armed wing of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka, (OPM Free Papua Organisation) that has been pushing its cause since the 1970s.

A major story by any measure. The Indonesian military’s inability to find and safely secure the New Zealander has the potential to cause serious diplomatic rifts and great harm to all parties.

There have been unverified reports of bombs dropped from helicopters on jungle camps where the pilot may have been held with uninvolved civilians.

The other eight stories were about Queenslander Bodhi Mani Risby-Jones who had been arrested in April for allegedly going on a nude drunken rampage and bashing a local in Indonesian Aceh.

Stupidities commonplace
Had the 23-year-old surfer been a fool in his home country the yarn would have been a yawn. Such stupidities are commonplace.

But because he chose to be a slob in the strictly Muslim province of Aceh and facing  up to five years jail plus a public flogging, his plight opened the issue of cultural differences and tourist arrogance.  Small news, but legitimate.

He has now reportedly done a $25,000 deal to buy his way out of charges and pay restitution to his victim. This shows a flexible social and legal system displaying tolerance — which is how Christians are supposed to behave.

All noteworthy, easy to grasp. But more important than the threatened execution of an innocent victim of circumstances caught in a complex dispute that needs detailed explanations to understand?

Mehrtens landed a commercial company’s plane as part of his job for Susi Air flying people and goods into isolated airstrips when he was grabbed by armed men desperate to get Jakarta to pay attention to their grievances.

Ironically, Aceh where Risby-Jones got himself into strife, had also fought for independence and won. Like West Papua, it’s resource-rich so essential for the central government’s economy.

A vicious on-off war between the Gerakan Aceh Merdeka, (GAM-Free Aceh Movement) and the Indonesian military started in 1976 and reportedly took up to 30,000 lives across the following three decades.

Tsunami revived peace talks
It only ended when the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami killed 160,000  people and  former general Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was elected president and  revived peace talks. Other countries became involved, including the European Union and Finland where the Helsinki Agreement was signed.

Both sides bowed to a compromise. GAM leaders abandoned their demands for independence, settling for “self-government” within the Indonesian state, while soldiers were withdrawn. The bombings have stopped but at the cost of personal freedoms and angering human rights advocates.

Freed from Jakarta’s control, the province passed strict Shariah laws. These include public floggings for homosexual acts, drinking booze and being close to an opposite sex person who is not a relative. Morality Police patrols prowl shady spots, alert to any signs of affection.

Australian academic and former journalist Dr Damien Kingsbury was also instrumental in getting GAM and Jakarta to talk. He was involved with the West Papua standoff earlier this year but New Zealand is now using its own to negotiate.

Dr Kingsbury told the ABC the situation in West Papua is at a stalemate with neither Wellington nor Jakarta willing to make concessions. The Indonesian electorate has no truck for “separatists” so wants a bang-bang fix. NZ urges a softly-slowly approach.

A TPNPB spokesperson told the BBC: “The Indonesian government has to be bold and sit with us at a negotiation table and not [deploy] military and police to search for the pilot.”

The 2005 Aceh resolution means the Papua fighters have a strong model of what is possible when other countries intervene. So far it seems none have dared, fearing the wrath of nationalists who believe Western states, and particularly Australia, are trying to “Balkanise”  the “unitary state” and plunder its riches.

Theory given energy
This theory was given energy when Australia supported the 1999 East Timor referendum which led to the province splitting from Indonesia and becoming a separate nation.

Should Australia try to act as a go-between in the Papua conflict, we would be dragged into the upcoming Presidential election campaign with outraged candidates thumping lecterns claiming outside interference. That is something no one wants but sitting on hands won’t help Mehrtens.

In the meantime, Risby-Jones, whose boorish behaviour has confirmed Indonesian prejudices about Australian oafs, is expected to be deported.

Mehrtens will only get to tell his tale if the Indonesian government shows the forbearance displayed by the family of Edi Ron.  The Aceh fisherman needed 50 stitches and copped broken bones and an infected foot from his Aussie encounter, but he still shook hands.

After weeks in a cell the surfer has shown contrition and apologised. Australian ‘”proceedings of crime” laws should prevent him earning from his ordeal.

If the Kiwi pilot does get out alive, he deserves the media attention lavished on the Australian. This might shift international interest from a zonked twit to the issue of West Papua’s independence and remind diplomats that if Jakarta could bend in the far west of the archipelago,  why not in the far east?

Lest Indonesians forget:  Around 100,000 revolutionaries died during the four-year war against the returning colonial Dutch after Soekarno proclaimed independence in 1975. The Dutch only retreated after external pressure from the US and Australia.

Duncan Graham has been a journalist for more than 40 years in print, radio and TV. He is the author of People Next Door (UWA Press) and winner of the Walkley Award and Human Rights awards. He is now writing for the English language media in Indonesia from within Indonesia. This article was first published in Pearls & Irritations on 30 May 2023 and is republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A West Papuan leader, defending himself against treason charges, has denounced “systemic racism” by Indonesian authorities in the Melanesian region in a court hearing.

Viktor Yeimo, the international spokesperson of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), presented his defence statement — pledoi — in a hearing at the Jayapura Class 1A District Court in Papua Province last Thursday.

He claimed that the treason charge against him was discriminatory and had political undertones.

Yeimo also argued that the trial conducted at the Jayapura District Court had failed to provide evidence of any wrongdoing or violation of the law — let alone treason — on his part.

The accusation of treason against Yeimo was linked to his alleged involvement in the anti-racism protests in Jayapura City on August 19 and 29, 2019.

These protests were made to condemn derogatory remarks made towards Papuan students at the Kamasan III Student Dormitory in Surabaya on August 16, 2019.

On August 12, 2021, the Jayapura District Court registered the alleged treason case under the case number 376/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Jap. The trial was presided over by chief judge Mathius and member judges Andi Asmuruf and Linn Carol Hamadi.

Witnesses ‘proved innocence’
When reading his defence statement, Yeimo said that all witnesses presented by the prosecutor had actually proven the fact that he did not plan or coordinate the demonstrations against Papuan racism that took place in Jayapura City.

Video of Viktor Yeimo’s defence presentation.  Video: Jubi TV

“At the August 19, 2019 action, I participated as a participant in the action against racism, and took part in securing the peaceful action at the request of students until it was over,” Yeimo said.

During the hearing, Yeimo argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecutor had actually corroborated his innocence. Their testimony had shown that he did not organise the protests in question.

Yeimo maintained that he had simply participated in the protests as a supporter of the cause and had helped ensure their peaceful conduct.

“During the protest on August 19, 2019, I merely acted as a participant and helped maintain a peaceful demonstration until it ended,” Yeimo said in his defence.

Yeimo highlighted the testimony of Feri Kombo, the former head of the Cenderawasih University Student executive board in 2019, who affirmed that Yeimo was not involved in the planning or coordination of the anti-racism protests.

Kombo was summoned as a witness on February 7, 2023, and testified that Yeimo had only given a speech at the event when requested by the protesters, and that the speech was intended to maintain order among them.

Delivered speeches
“I delivered speeches expressing my disappointment with the acts of racism in Surabaya. This aspiration is protected by the country’s laws as a constitutional right,” Yeimo said.

“As stated by the state administration expert witness and the philosophy expert witness, this right has a scientific basis.”

In addition, Yeimo stressed that he had never been involved in participating, let alone planning, in the protest that occurred on August 29, 2019, which was confirmed by all the witnesses presented in the trial.

Yeimo admitted that he had taken photos and videos in front of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) office and the Governor’s Office, but did not join the protest.

Yeimo clarified that he captured photos and videos to share with journalists and the public outside of Papua since the internet network was cut off by the central government at the time.

He added that President Joko Widodo had been found guilty of unlawful acts by a judge in the State Administrative Court in relation to the internet blackout.

Response to racism
Yeimo said that the anti-racism demonstration was a spontaneous action taken by both Papuan and non-Papuan people in response to the racial insults that had been directed at Papuan students in Surabaya.

“The 2019 anti-racism protest that spread throughout Papua was a spontaneous response by Papuans and non-Papuan sympathizers from various backgrounds including private sector workers, students, farmers, military and police, and others.

“Everyone was reacting to the racist remarks in Surabaya. The demonstration in Jayapura was organised by students and the Cipayung group, and there was no planning, conspiracy, or treason as alleged.

“My speech was to represent the Papuan people who felt outraged by the racist insults. I deny all accusations that link me to my organizational background and other activities that have no direct connection to the facts of the anti-racism protest,” Yeimo said.

Yeimo stated that during the protest on August 19, 2019, he spoke about the issue of racism and discrimination in Indonesia. He emphasised that these problems were not merely personal issues but rather systematic problems that were perpetuated for the benefit of the ruling economic powers.

“It is evident that racist views have led to Papuans being treated differently in all aspects of their lives. The negative stigma attached to Papuans is what led the mass organisation and state apparatus to attack the Papuan Student Dormitory in Surabaya.”

In his statement, Yeimo’s arguments revolved around the issue of racial discrimination that Papuans have faced and how it is seen as a normal occurrence that the State tolerates.

Papuans standing up to injustices
He highlighted that when Papuans stood up against these injustices, they were met with accusations of provocation and charged with treason.

“This trial case proves it. Racism really exists in all these accusations and charges. Could the State explain why the Papuan race is a minority, with only 2.9 million people remaining, while in Papua New Guinea there are already 17 million Papuans?” Yeimo asked.

In his pledoi, Yeimo not only defended himself against the treason allegations but also criticised Indonesia’s lack of development in Papua.

He raised questions about why the poverty rate in Papua remained the highest among all provinces in Indonesia and why the Human Development Index in the region had consistently been the lowest.

Yeimo pointed out the contrasting approaches taken by the Indonesian government in resolving the conflict in Aceh and in Papua.

Differences with Aceh
While the Aceh conflict was resolved through peace talks, Papua’s aspirations for independence have been met with violence and imprisonment.

Yeimo questioned why the government treats the two regions so differently.

Yeimo said that although Indonesia had enacted several laws to address issues of discrimination, freedom of expression, and special autonomy for Papua, these laws do not seem to be enforced in Papua, and their implementation did not benefit the indigenous Papuans.

“Isn’t that a structured crime against us Papuans? Can the government answer these questions? Or do the answers have to come from the muzzle of a gun?” asked Yeimo.

“Why is the government avoiding solutions recommended by state institutions such as the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, the National Research and Innovation Agency, and others who present the studies on Papua problems?”

Linguist witness competence in Yeimo’s trial questioned
During the hearing, Viktor Yeimo’s legal team, represented by the Papua Law Enforcement and Human Rights Coalition, presented a defence read by advocate Emanuel Gobay.

Gobay argued that the prosecutor’s conclusion that Yeimo had committed treason relied solely on the testimony of a linguist witness who lacked the necessary expertise to prove the elements of the crime of treason as outlined in Article 106 jo Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code, which Yeimo had been charged with.

“As a matter of fact, during the trial, the prosecutor never presented a criminal expert witness. Instead, the prosecutor relied on a linguist and then concluded that Viktor Yeimo was guilty of treason,” said Gobay.

According to Gobay, Yeimo’s legal team had presented multiple expert witnesses who explained the components of the treason offence, which included the elements of intent, territorial separation, and participation.

“All elements mentioned in Article 106 are not proven based on the testimony of both the prosecutor’s witnesses and the expert witnesses we presented,” Gobay said.

Gobay expressed the hope that the judges would review all the facts presented in Yeimo’s trial.

He asked the judges to re-examine the data provided by legal philosophy expert Tristam Pascal Moeliono, human rights expert Herlambang P Wiratraman, conflict resolution expert in Papua Cahyo Pamungkas, and criminal law expert Amira Paripurna.

Ultimately, Gobay made a plea to the judges to exonerate Viktor Yeimo, stating there was no proof of the alleged offences.

He requested restoration of Yeimo’s reputation and the State to bear the trial costs.

Republished from Jubi with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A West Papuan leader, defending himself against treason charges, has denounced “systemic racism” by Indonesian authorities in the Melanesian region in a court hearing.

Viktor Yeimo, the international spokesperson of the West Papua National Committee (KNPB), presented his defence statement — pledoi — in a hearing at the Jayapura Class 1A District Court in Papua Province last Thursday.

He claimed that the treason charge against him was discriminatory and had political undertones.

Yeimo also argued that the trial conducted at the Jayapura District Court had failed to provide evidence of any wrongdoing or violation of the law — let alone treason — on his part.

The accusation of treason against Yeimo was linked to his alleged involvement in the anti-racism protests in Jayapura City on August 19 and 29, 2019.

These protests were made to condemn derogatory remarks made towards Papuan students at the Kamasan III Student Dormitory in Surabaya on August 16, 2019.

On August 12, 2021, the Jayapura District Court registered the alleged treason case under the case number 376/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Jap. The trial was presided over by chief judge Mathius and member judges Andi Asmuruf and Linn Carol Hamadi.

Witnesses ‘proved innocence’
When reading his defence statement, Yeimo said that all witnesses presented by the prosecutor had actually proven the fact that he did not plan or coordinate the demonstrations against Papuan racism that took place in Jayapura City.

Video of Viktor Yeimo’s defence presentation.  Video: Jubi TV

“At the August 19, 2019 action, I participated as a participant in the action against racism, and took part in securing the peaceful action at the request of students until it was over,” Yeimo said.

During the hearing, Yeimo argued that the witnesses produced by the prosecutor had actually corroborated his innocence. Their testimony had shown that he did not organise the protests in question.

Yeimo maintained that he had simply participated in the protests as a supporter of the cause and had helped ensure their peaceful conduct.

“During the protest on August 19, 2019, I merely acted as a participant and helped maintain a peaceful demonstration until it ended,” Yeimo said in his defence.

Yeimo highlighted the testimony of Feri Kombo, the former head of the Cenderawasih University Student executive board in 2019, who affirmed that Yeimo was not involved in the planning or coordination of the anti-racism protests.

Kombo was summoned as a witness on February 7, 2023, and testified that Yeimo had only given a speech at the event when requested by the protesters, and that the speech was intended to maintain order among them.

Delivered speeches
“I delivered speeches expressing my disappointment with the acts of racism in Surabaya. This aspiration is protected by the country’s laws as a constitutional right,” Yeimo said.

“As stated by the state administration expert witness and the philosophy expert witness, this right has a scientific basis.”

In addition, Yeimo stressed that he had never been involved in participating, let alone planning, in the protest that occurred on August 29, 2019, which was confirmed by all the witnesses presented in the trial.

Yeimo admitted that he had taken photos and videos in front of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) office and the Governor’s Office, but did not join the protest.

Yeimo clarified that he captured photos and videos to share with journalists and the public outside of Papua since the internet network was cut off by the central government at the time.

He added that President Joko Widodo had been found guilty of unlawful acts by a judge in the State Administrative Court in relation to the internet blackout.

Response to racism
Yeimo said that the anti-racism demonstration was a spontaneous action taken by both Papuan and non-Papuan people in response to the racial insults that had been directed at Papuan students in Surabaya.

“The 2019 anti-racism protest that spread throughout Papua was a spontaneous response by Papuans and non-Papuan sympathizers from various backgrounds including private sector workers, students, farmers, military and police, and others.

“Everyone was reacting to the racist remarks in Surabaya. The demonstration in Jayapura was organised by students and the Cipayung group, and there was no planning, conspiracy, or treason as alleged.

“My speech was to represent the Papuan people who felt outraged by the racist insults. I deny all accusations that link me to my organizational background and other activities that have no direct connection to the facts of the anti-racism protest,” Yeimo said.

Yeimo stated that during the protest on August 19, 2019, he spoke about the issue of racism and discrimination in Indonesia. He emphasised that these problems were not merely personal issues but rather systematic problems that were perpetuated for the benefit of the ruling economic powers.

“It is evident that racist views have led to Papuans being treated differently in all aspects of their lives. The negative stigma attached to Papuans is what led the mass organisation and state apparatus to attack the Papuan Student Dormitory in Surabaya.”

In his statement, Yeimo’s arguments revolved around the issue of racial discrimination that Papuans have faced and how it is seen as a normal occurrence that the State tolerates.

Papuans standing up to injustices
He highlighted that when Papuans stood up against these injustices, they were met with accusations of provocation and charged with treason.

“This trial case proves it. Racism really exists in all these accusations and charges. Could the State explain why the Papuan race is a minority, with only 2.9 million people remaining, while in Papua New Guinea there are already 17 million Papuans?” Yeimo asked.

In his pledoi, Yeimo not only defended himself against the treason allegations but also criticised Indonesia’s lack of development in Papua.

He raised questions about why the poverty rate in Papua remained the highest among all provinces in Indonesia and why the Human Development Index in the region had consistently been the lowest.

Yeimo pointed out the contrasting approaches taken by the Indonesian government in resolving the conflict in Aceh and in Papua.

Differences with Aceh
While the Aceh conflict was resolved through peace talks, Papua’s aspirations for independence have been met with violence and imprisonment.

Yeimo questioned why the government treats the two regions so differently.

Yeimo said that although Indonesia had enacted several laws to address issues of discrimination, freedom of expression, and special autonomy for Papua, these laws do not seem to be enforced in Papua, and their implementation did not benefit the indigenous Papuans.

“Isn’t that a structured crime against us Papuans? Can the government answer these questions? Or do the answers have to come from the muzzle of a gun?” asked Yeimo.

“Why is the government avoiding solutions recommended by state institutions such as the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, the National Research and Innovation Agency, and others who present the studies on Papua problems?”

Linguist witness competence in Yeimo’s trial questioned
During the hearing, Viktor Yeimo’s legal team, represented by the Papua Law Enforcement and Human Rights Coalition, presented a defence read by advocate Emanuel Gobay.

Gobay argued that the prosecutor’s conclusion that Yeimo had committed treason relied solely on the testimony of a linguist witness who lacked the necessary expertise to prove the elements of the crime of treason as outlined in Article 106 jo Article 55 paragraph (1) to 1 of the Criminal Code, which Yeimo had been charged with.

“As a matter of fact, during the trial, the prosecutor never presented a criminal expert witness. Instead, the prosecutor relied on a linguist and then concluded that Viktor Yeimo was guilty of treason,” said Gobay.

According to Gobay, Yeimo’s legal team had presented multiple expert witnesses who explained the components of the treason offence, which included the elements of intent, territorial separation, and participation.

“All elements mentioned in Article 106 are not proven based on the testimony of both the prosecutor’s witnesses and the expert witnesses we presented,” Gobay said.

Gobay expressed the hope that the judges would review all the facts presented in Yeimo’s trial.

He asked the judges to re-examine the data provided by legal philosophy expert Tristam Pascal Moeliono, human rights expert Herlambang P Wiratraman, conflict resolution expert in Papua Cahyo Pamungkas, and criminal law expert Amira Paripurna.

Ultimately, Gobay made a plea to the judges to exonerate Viktor Yeimo, stating there was no proof of the alleged offences.

He requested restoration of Yeimo’s reputation and the State to bear the trial costs.

Republished from Jubi with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An Indonesian human rights researcher has cricitised his government’s failure to negotiate with West Papuan rebels, saying security officials should learn from the 2005 Aceh peace pact.

The Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) research and mobilisation division head, Rozy Brilian, said the Indonesian government had always refused to hold a dialogue with Papuan pro-independence fighters.

He gave this message during a virtual public discussion titled “Failing to Address the Roots of the Conflict and the Window Dressing of a Development Illusion” last Friday — just two days before several Indonesian soldiers were believed to have been killed in a clash with West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) rebels in the Papuan highlands.

The Indonesia soldiers were searching for New Zealand hostage pilot Philip Mehrtens who has been held captive since early February.

“The government always refuses to hold a dialogue with armed groups that the government refers to as KKB [armed criminal groups] even though the push for dialogue has often been encouraged by different parties,” said Brilian.

Yet, according to Brilian, the model of dialogue with an armed group has successfully been pursued by the Indonesian government in the past.

Aceh peace talks
Brilian gave the example of the Aceh peace talks conducted during the era of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY).

“This dialogue then concluded in negotiations that produced a Memorandum of Understanding (Mou), or agreement, between the Indonesian government and GAM [Free Aceh Movement] in Helsinki,” said Brilian.

That pact brought peace after three decades of warfare.

According to Brilian, the current government should learn from earlier experiences of holding dialogue with armed groups.

In addition to this, said Brilian, Indonesia could also learn from the Philippines which succeeded in “taming” armed independence groups through dialogue.

“Learn from other experiences in the Southeast Asia region, dialogue between the government and pro-independence armed groups were once held by the Philippines government with the pro-independence Moro Islamic Liberation Front group,” he said.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Pemerintah Dinilai Selalu Menolak Usul Dialog Damai dengan KKB Papua”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An Indonesian human rights researcher has cricitised his government’s failure to negotiate with West Papuan rebels, saying security officials should learn from the 2005 Aceh peace pact.

The Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) research and mobilisation division head, Rozy Brilian, said the Indonesian government had always refused to hold a dialogue with Papuan pro-independence fighters.

He gave this message during a virtual public discussion titled “Failing to Address the Roots of the Conflict and the Window Dressing of a Development Illusion” last Friday — just two days before several Indonesian soldiers were believed to have been killed in a clash with West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) rebels in the Papuan highlands.

The Indonesia soldiers were searching for New Zealand hostage pilot Philip Mehrtens who has been held captive since early February.

“The government always refuses to hold a dialogue with armed groups that the government refers to as KKB [armed criminal groups] even though the push for dialogue has often been encouraged by different parties,” said Brilian.

Yet, according to Brilian, the model of dialogue with an armed group has successfully been pursued by the Indonesian government in the past.

Aceh peace talks
Brilian gave the example of the Aceh peace talks conducted during the era of former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY).

“This dialogue then concluded in negotiations that produced a Memorandum of Understanding (Mou), or agreement, between the Indonesian government and GAM [Free Aceh Movement] in Helsinki,” said Brilian.

That pact brought peace after three decades of warfare.

According to Brilian, the current government should learn from earlier experiences of holding dialogue with armed groups.

In addition to this, said Brilian, Indonesia could also learn from the Philippines which succeeded in “taming” armed independence groups through dialogue.

“Learn from other experiences in the Southeast Asia region, dialogue between the government and pro-independence armed groups were once held by the Philippines government with the pro-independence Moro Islamic Liberation Front group,” he said.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Pemerintah Dinilai Selalu Menolak Usul Dialog Damai dengan KKB Papua”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Indonesian President Joko Widodo has acknowledged “gross human rights violations” in his country’s history and vowed to prevent any repeat.

He cited 12 “regrettable” events, including an anti-communist purge at the height of the Cold War.

By some estimates, the massacres killed about 500,000 people.

Widodo is the second Indonesian president to publicly admit the 1960s bloodshed, after the late Abdurrahman Wahid’s public apology in 2000.

The violence was unleashed after communists were accused of killing six generals in an attempted coup amid a struggle for power between the communists, the military and Islamist groups.

“With a clear mind and an earnest heart, I as [Indonesia’s] head of state acknowledge that gross human rights violations did happen in many occurrences,” Widodo said at a news conference outside the presidential palace in Jakarta.

“And I strongly regret that those violations occurred,” added the president, more commonly known as Jokowi.

Democratic activists abducted
The events he cited took place between 1965 and 2003 and included the abduction of democratic activists during protests against former leader Suharto’s iron-fisted presidency in the late 1990s.

The president also highlighted rights violations in the region of Papua — the eastern region bordering Papua New Guinea where there has been a long-running independence movement — as well as during an insurgency in the province of Aceh, in the north of the island of Sumatra.

The government was looking to restore the rights of victims “fairly and wisely without negating judicial resolution”, he said, but did not specify how this would be done.

“I will endeavour wholeheartedly to ensure gross human rights violations never happen again in the future,” he added.

However, rights activists said his admission failed to address government responsibility.

Call for legal action
Amnesty International’s Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid called for legal action to be taken against the perpetrators of these acts.

“Mere recognition without trying to bring to justice those responsible for past human rights violations will only add salt to the wounds of the victims and their families. Simply put, the president’s statement is meaningless without accountability,” he said.

Andreas Harsono of Human Rights Watch said Widodo “stopped short of explicitly admitting the government’s role in the atrocities or making any commitments to pursue accountability”.

Widodo recently received a report from a team he commissioned last year to investigate rights violations.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ. 

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

British and Indonesian human rights defender Carmel Budiardjo, founder of TAPOL watchdog and the movement’s driving force for many decades, has died peacefully aged 96.

TAPOL said in an announcement that she had died on Saturday and would greatly missed by an extensive network of people whose lives had been “touched — and sometimes transformed — by her passionate and determined campaigning for human rights, justice and democracy in Indonesia, East Timor, Aceh and West Papua”.

For many, she had been a great mentor as well as a beloved friend, TAPOL said.

TAPOL stands for “tahanan politik” or “political prisoners” in Indonesian.

Budiardjo, a British citizen then living in Indonesia, was imprisoned without trial by Indonesian authorities following former President Suharto’s rise to power in 1965.

An Amnesty International prisoner of conscience, Budiardjo was released after three years’ imprisonment and she returned to the UK.

In 1973, she founded TAPOL to campaign for the release of the tens of thousands of political prisoners following the 1965 atrocities by the Suharto regime and in support of the relatives of the hundreds of thousands who were killed.

Raised awareness of atrocities
Budiardjo was determined to raise international awareness about those atrocities and injustices in which many Western countries, including the UK, were “complicit in their attempts to halt what they saw as the rise of communism”.

Over the next three decades, TAPOL’s work broadened to encompass wider issues of human rights, peace and democracy in Indonesia, including in Aceh, East Timor and the contested Melanesian territory of West Papua.

“Wherever possible, and despite the extreme repression of the New Order regime, we built close relationships and collaboration with the very brave human rights defenders and pro-democracy campaigners there,” said TAPOL.

In 1995, Budiardjo received the Right Livelihood Award, after being nominated by the International Federation for East Timor.

With awareness growing also of the environmental damage being wrought by the regime on nature and local communities, in 1988 Budiardjo helped set up a sister organisation, Down to Earth, to fight for ecological justice.

Later, in 2007, Budiardjo and TAPOL were also founder members of the London Mining Network, established to support communities harmed by London-based mining companies.

“As Indonesia became more democratic during the 2000s, we increasingly turned our attention to the region of West Papua. There, human rights violations have continued, largely out-of-sight and un-discussed within Indonesia as well as internationally,” said TAPOL.

John Rumbiak Award
For TAPOL’s international work on West Papua, Budiardjo also received the John Rumbiak Human Rights Defender Award and was honoured as an “Eldest Daughter of Papua” by leaders of West Papuan civil society in 2011.

TAPOL is still today very much as Budiardjo set it up — a small organisation/network of committed staff, volunteers and collaborators, all aiming for a big impact.

“We remain committed to her ideals of promoting justice and equality across Indonesia, and are deeply grateful for all that she contributed and taught us,” the TAPOL statement said.

“Our thoughts and sincere condolences for this huge, sad loss go to Carmel’s family in particular, but also to all those across the globe who knew and loved her.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz