COMMENTARY: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta

The island of Papua is a land of profound paradox. Beneath its ancient, cathedral-like forests and within its mineral-rich mountains lies a narrative of staggering contrast.

It is a place where immense natural wealth exists alongside some of Indonesia’s most acute human development challenges.

This dissonance poses a central riddle: why does a land of such abundance host populations grappling with persistent poverty, gaps in education and healthcare, and a deep sense of political marginalisation?

A principle found in Papuan wisdom offers a starting point: the past is a mirror for gazing upon tomorrow.

To understand Papua’s present and navigate its future, we must look honestly into that mirror. Yet, when the reflection shows recurring patterns of inequality and unfulfilled promises, we are compelled to ask what kind of future is being built.

The story of Papua is not merely one of resources; it is fundamentally about people, their rights, and their place within the Indonesian nation.

This reflection need not occur in isolation. Looking east across the Pacific, two nations — Australia and New Zealand — have embarked on their own complex, painful, and unfinished journeys of reconciling with their Indigenous peoples.

Their experiences are not blueprints, but they offer invaluable mirrors in which Indonesia might glimpse reflections of its own challenges and potential pathways forward.

The central, reflective question is this: Amidst Indonesia’s unique historical and political complexity, is there room to learn from these Pacific neighbours? Can Jakarta find a distinctive, yet equally courageous, path to reconciliation with Papua?

Unsettled foundation: A history demanding to be heard
Any discussion of Papua must begin by acknowledging the fractured foundation upon which its relationship with Jakarta is built. Unlike New Zealand, where the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) provides a contested but acknowledged founding document for Crown-Māori relations, Indonesia and Papua have no mutually agreed foundational treaty.

Papua’s integration was solidified through the Act of Free Choice (Pepera) in 1969, a process whose legitimacy remains internationally debated and is remembered with bitterness by many Papuans.

This unresolved historical grievance is the DNA of the conflict. It infects every policy, fuels distrust, and allows security-centric approaches to dominate.

Jakarta’s apparent reluctance to engage in open, high-level dialogue about this history keeps the wound open. New Zealand’s experience, though painful and expensive, demonstrates that confronting a dark past is not a threat to national unity, but a prerequisite for building a common future on a clearer moral and legal foundation.

The first lesson from the Pacific is that sustainable solutions cannot be built on unacknowledged history.

The Australian mirror: Pillars of incremental recognition
Australia’s relationship with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples represents a protracted and painful journey from the brutal realities of colonisation toward a fragile, imperfect process of recognition and repair.

The historical backdrop is one of profound trauma, marked by dispossession, assimilation policies, and the devastating legacy of the Stolen Generations. Yet, in recent decades, a discernible — though inconsistent — policy shift has emerged, built upon several key pillars that provide a structured, if unfinished, framework for addressing historical wrongs.

These pillars offer critical points of comparison for other contexts, such as that of West Papua under Indonesian administration, illuminating stark contrasts in both philosophy and outcome.

Political recognition: From absence to acknowledgment
The 1967 Referendum, which allowed Aboriginal people to be counted in the census and gave the federal government power to make laws for them, stands as a symbolic turning point in Australian political consciousness. Today, the lexicon of recognition is embedded in official discourse, with terms like “First Nations People” and “Traditional Custodians” routinely used in parliamentary speeches and public ceremonies.

The establishment of the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) represents a systematic, though often criticised, effort to coordinate policy across government. This reflects a tangible, if uneven, move toward recognising Aboriginal peoples not merely as citizens, but as original inhabitants with a unique historical and cultural status deserving of specific acknowledgment.

Papuan Special Autonomy: Otsus in stark contrast
In stark contrast, Jakarta’s primary instrument for Papua is Special Autonomy (Otsus), a policy centered on fiscal transfers and nominal political affirmation. While Otsus mandates native Papuan leadership in provincial governments, its essence is consistently stifled by centralised security policies, the dominance of national political parties, and the imposition of territorial divisions with minimal deep consultation.

Consequently, Otsus feels less like a partnership born of genuine historical recognition and more like a technical administrative concession granted — and tightly controlled — from the centre. The core Papuan struggle remains one for existential recognition: an acknowledgment of their distinct identity as Indigenous peoples with inherent political rights, rather than merely as beneficiaries of state-administered policy.

Economic rights: Land and resource sovereignty
Australia’s Native Title Act of 1993 was a revolutionary legal development, overturning the doctrine of terra nullius and recognising the persistence of Aboriginal traditional ownership and connection to land. Although the claims process is notoriously arduous and contested, it has resulted in the return of millions of hectares of land.

Complementing this are land handback programmes and innovative co-management models for national parks and cultural sites, such as Uluru-Kata Tjuta.

Furthermore, nascent royalty-sharing schemes from mining on Indigenous-held land aim to provide an independent economic base, positioning communities not as passive recipients but as stakeholders with property rights.

The contrast with Papua is profound. The region functions as Indonesia’s primary economic engine, with megaprojects like the Freeport copper and gold mine and the Tangguh LNG facility driving national exports. Yet, this extractive model is intensely centralised, with profits flowing to Jakarta and global corporate headquarters while Indigenous communities near these operations often live in stark deprivation.

Otsus funds, while substantial, are funneled through government mechanisms and do not alter this fundamental, exploitative structure. Critically, Papuan customary land rights (hak ulayat) are routinely overridden by state-issued business permits. There exists no large-scale, legally empowered mechanism for reparations or asset restitution to Papuan tribes, leaving them economically marginalised on their own land.

Social policy: Closing the gap
Since 2008, Australia has formally adopted the Closing the Gap Strategy, a framework establishing specific, measurable targets for improving Indigenous life outcomes in health, education, and employment.

This strategy represents an explicit, if imperfect, admission that historical marginalization requires targeted, accountable, and data-driven intervention by the state. It acknowledges a collective responsibility to address disparities directly, even as critiques of its implementation and pace persist.

Indonesia lacks an equivalent national policy framework specifically tailored to address Papua’s acute and unique disparities. Development indicators and programs are largely standardized, failing to account for Papua’s distinct geography, history, and cultural context. As a result, health and education systems suffer from severe infrastructure deficits, critical staffing shortages, and a curriculum that ignores local knowledge.

Maternal mortality and malnutrition rates remain among the highest in Southeast Asia. The fundamental gap lies in agency: for meaningful progress, Papuans must be transformed from objects of development into its active, designing subjects.

Cultural recognition: Beyond symbolism
In Australia, Aboriginal cultural expression has increasingly moved beyond tokenism toward a more integrated, though still contested, national presence. Indigenous languages are being documented and revitalised, customary law receives limited recognition within the justice system, and Aboriginal art is celebrated as central to the nation’s identity.

The practice of acknowledging Traditional Custodians at the outset of official events, while symbolic, performs a daily act of cognitive recognition.

In Papua, the situation is different. The region’s stunning cultural diversity, encompassing over 250 distinct languages, is often treated as an intangible treasure or tourist asset rather than a living foundation for governance.

Local languages are not mediums of formal instruction, and customary norms are easily overridden by narratives of national unity and acculturation. While Papuan art and ritual are occasionally showcased, they are seldom integrated into substantive policymaking for cultural preservation and transmission, leaving this profound heritage vulnerable to erosion.

New Zealand mirror: A framework for courageous reconciliation
If Australia demonstrates a fitful journey toward recognition, New Zealand presents a more advanced, treaty-based model of reconciliation. The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, despite its contested translations and history of breaches, is the accepted foundational document of the modern state. This has provided a crucial platform for building concrete mechanisms to address historical grievances and partnership.

The Waitangi Tribunal and reparations
Established in 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry that investigates Crown actions alleged to breach the Treaty’s principles. Its recommendations have fueled a massive, ongoing process of historical settlement involving land restitution, financial compensation, and formal Crown apologies.

This process, while not without controversy, provides a formal channel for redressing historical wrongs and transferring resources back to Māori iwi (tribes).

Guaranteed political voice
Māori have had dedicated parliamentary seats since 1867, ensuring a direct voice in the national legislature. This has been complemented by the rise of a dedicated Te Pati Māori political party and the establishment of the Ministry for Māori Development (Te Puni Kōkiri), which advocates for Māori interests within the government apparatus.

This structural presence ensures that Indigenous perspectives are embedded in political discourse.

Biculturalism as national policy
Biculturalism is woven into New Zealand’s institutional fabric. Te reo Māori is an official language, supported by Māori-language immersion schools (Kura Kaupapa Māori), a dedicated television channel (Māori Television), and prominent university faculties.

The national curriculum incorporates Māori history, knowledge, and perspectives, fostering a broader public understanding.

Comparison with Papua
For Papua, the absence of any such foundational agreement or framework leaves a profound vacuum. There is no equivalent to the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate historical grievances or restore resources.

Politically, there are no guaranteed mechanisms for Papuan representation at the national level in Indonesia. Socio-culturally, while Papua’s languages are celebrated in folkloric terms, there is no nationally broadcast, Papuan-led television channel or a system of dedicated higher education institutes focused on Melanesian studies and leadership.

New Zealand’s lesson is the transformative power of a framework — however contested — that creates institutional channels for grievance, voice, and cultural revitalization.

Deep Pacific connection: Why New Zealand cares
New Zealand’s sustained attention on Papua transcends standard diplomatic concern; it is rooted in profound connections that resonate deeply with the New Zealand public and polity, creating a unique sense of obligation.

First, a demographic kinship creates relatability: New Zealand’s population of approximately 5.1 million is nearly equivalent to the population of Indonesia’s six Papuan provinces (around 5.6 million). This similar scale makes the challenges faced by Papuans feel immediate and comprehensible.

More profoundly, there are undeniable historical and anthropological links. Scientific research in population genetics traces Polynesian ancestry, including that of Māori, back through Melanesia.

Culturally, the social structures of Papuan highlands tribes, with their complex clan and confederation systems, closely mirror the traditional Māori hapu (clan) and iwi (tribe) organisations. Similarities extend to concepts of customary governance, spirituality, and reciprocal exchange, suggesting shared ancestral roots.

This connection is cemented by modern history. Papuan people provided crucial aid to Australian and New Zealand troops during the Pacific War in thd Second World War. Furthermore, as documented by historians like Maire Leadbeater, New Zealand was indirectly involved in the territory’s mid-century fate, initially supporting Dutch efforts to prepare Papua for independence before acquiescing to the controversial Act of Free Choice that facilitated Indonesian integration.

For many New Zealanders, particularly Māori, advocating for Papuans is viewed as a Tangata Moana (People of the Ocean) responsibility — a moral, cultural, and spiritual call to support fellow Pacific indigenes facing adversity.

This deeply felt public and civic sentiment ensures the issue remains persistently alive in New Zealand’s parliament, churches, universities, and civil society, constantly applying pressure and challenging any government inclination toward a “business as usual” foreign policy approach toward Indonesia regarding Papua.

This unique solidarity, born of shared identity and history, makes New Zealand a distinct and vocal stakeholder in Papua’s ongoing struggle.

Forging a distinctive path: Strategic recommendations for Indonesia
Indonesia’s engagement with the Pacific region offers a reservoir of wisdom, yet the fundamental lesson is that adaptation, not adoption, is key. The nation’s immense diversity, complex history, and unique political architecture mean that solutions cannot be copy-pasted.

However, the perennial fear of national disintegration must not become a paralysing force that stifles the bold policy innovation required to address the root causes of discord, particularly in Papua. Moving beyond rhetorical commitments to tangible action demands significant political will and courage.

The following recommendations outline a potential pathway for transformative change, aiming to forge a new social contract built on justice, partnership, and genuine autonomy:

The journey must begin with a profound act of historical reckoning and political courage. The President should personally initiate a high-level National Reconciliation Framework for Papua.

This would be a landmark political initiative, potentially involving the establishment of an independent Papuan Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Its mandate must be coupled with an official, unambiguous state acknowledgment of past human rights violations.

This process would create a structured and equal dialogue platform, moving past cycles of recrimination. Addressing this historical wound is not an end in itself but a necessary precondition to cleanse the poisoned well of present-day interactions and build a foundation of trust for all subsequent reforms.

Concurrently, the policy of Special Autonomy must be radically reimagined. The concept of “Otsus Plus” should evolve from a mechanism of fiscal devolution into a genuine political and economic partnership. This entails granting local governments conditional veto rights over major investments affecting customary land (ulayat), ensuring development is not imposed but negotiated.

Furthermore, the legislative and cultural authority of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) as the authentic voice of indigenous institutions must be constitutionally strengthened.

Finally, granting full autonomy over education and cultural policy, including locally relevant curricula and language instruction, is essential for preserving Papuan identity and fostering endogenous development.

True partnership is impossible without a fundamental restructuring of the economic model in Papua. The economy must shift from a centralised, extractive paradigm to one based on community sovereignty and benefit.

This requires legalising and strengthening customary land rights (hak ulayat) as a supreme legal principle, not a secondary consideration. Building on this, transparent and direct royalty-sharing mechanisms from natural resource projects must be established, ensuring proceeds flow to indigenous land-owning communities.

Complementing this, a Papuan-led “Closing the Gap” strategy with clear, measurable targets for health, education, and employment should be developed, with progress annually reported to the national parliament to ensure accountability.

Security and political representation form the twin pillars of stability and dignity. The prevailing security approach must be recalibrated to prioritise dialogue, community engagement, and human security over militarized confrontation. In parallel, to ensure Papuan voices are substantively embedded in national lawmaking, permanent seats for indigenous Papuan representatives should be constitutionally created in the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI).

Following the precedent set for Aceh, this guaranteed political representation would ensure Papuan perspectives directly influence national legislation that affects their lives, transforming them from subjects of policy to active architects of their future within the Republic.

Finally, Indonesia should strategically reframe its external engagement regarding Papua. Rather than viewing the Pacific’s cultural and political solidarity with Melanesian Papuans as a point of friction, Indonesia should embrace it as an opportunity for cultural diplomacy.

By proactively encouraging and funding robust academic, cultural, and civil society exchanges between Papuan and Māori/Pacific Island communities, Indonesia can build powerful bridges of people-to-people understanding. This initiative would acknowledge shared heritage while showcasing Indonesia’s commitment to inclusive development, thereby transforming a diplomatic challenge into a channel for soft-power connection and regional leadership.

In conclusion, this pathway is neither simple nor quick, but it is necessary. It calls for a series of courageous, interconnected leaps from the status quo toward a system predicated on acknowledgment, partnership, and substantive self-determination.

By addressing historical grievances, redesigning autonomy, restructuring the economy, reforming security, guaranteeing political voice, and leveraging cultural diplomacy, Indonesia has the potential to resolve its most persistent internal conflict. The result would be a stronger, more unified nation, where stability is built not on force but on justice and the full recognition of its diverse peoples’ aspirations.

Hope for the Land of Papua
The fate of Papua is the ultimate test of Indonesia’s inclusive nationhood. It can no longer be managed through a narrow security lens or obscured by macroeconomic statistics. This is about people, identity, history, and a shared future.

Hope endures. It shines in the eyes of Papuan children, the dedication of local health workers and teachers, and the voices of community and religious leaders calling for peace. It is also present among those in Jakarta who recognise the need for a new approach.

Australia and New Zealand, with their colonial burdens, have begun their imperfect journeys. Indonesia, with its experience of resolving the Aceh conflict through dialogue, can do the same. The condition is a fundamental shift in perspective: seeing Papuans not as a problem to be managed, but as equal partners and full subjects of their own destiny within the Republic.

A just and prosperous Papua is not a threat to Indonesia. It would be the fulfilment of the nation’s founding ideals of unity in diversity, and the pinnacle of a truly inclusive national project.

The mirror from the Pacific shows both the depth of the challenge and the possibility of a different reflection. It is now a matter of choosing to look and having the courage to act.

Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta. He is also an honorary member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) in Aotearoa New Zealand and an occasional contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua People’s Petition (PRP) protesters have braved brutal police blockades, forced dispersals and assaults while staging simultaneous mass actions across Papua.

The actions were held on Thursday to demonstrate the people’s opposition to revisions of the Special Autonomy Law on Papua (Otsus), the creation of new autonomous regions (DOB) and reaffirming demands for a referendum on independence.

Reports by Suara Papua have covered the following rallies:

Jayapura
A PRP action in Jayapura was held under tight security by police who subsequently broke up the rally, resulting in several people being hit and punched by police.

Four students — Welinus Walianggen, Ebenius Tabuni, Nias Aso and Habel Fauk — were assaulted by police near the PT Gapura Angkasa warehouse at the Cenderawasih University (Uncen) in Waena, Jayapura when police forcibly broke up the student protest.

According to Walianggen, one of the action coordinators, scores of police officers used batons and rattan sticks to disperse them.

Meanwhile, PRP protesters arriving from different places conveyed their demands at the Papua Regional House of Representatives (DPRP) office. Although they were blocked by police, negotiations were held at the main entrance to the Parliament building.

Several DPRP members then met with the demonstrators who handed over a document stating their opposition to the creation of the three new provinces (South Papua, Central Papua and the Papua Highlands) — ratified by the House of Representatives (DPR) during a plenary meeting in Senayan, Jakarta, on Thursday, June 31 — and and demanding that revisions to the Special Autonomy law be revoked.

Timika
In Timika, a PRP action was held in front of the Mimika Indonesian Builders Association (Gapensi) offices but this was broken up by police.

Despite not having permission from police, several speakers expressed the Papuan people’s opposition to Otsus, the DOBs and demands for a referendum. The speakers also called for the closure of the PT Freeport gold and copper mine and the cancellation of planned mining activities in the Wabu Block.

Nabire
In Nabire, PRP protesters held their ground against the police but many people who had gathered at Karang Tumaritis, SP 1 and Siriwini were arrested and taken away by the Nabire district police.

A short time later, demonstrators from several places headed towards the Nabire Regional House of Representatives (DPRD) office where they packed into the Parliament grounds.

While they were giving speeches, the demonstrators who had been arrested rejoined the action after being dropped off by several Nabire district police vehicles.

Meepago
Speakers representing various different organisations and elements of Papuan society in the Meepago region took turns in expressing their views.

PRP liaison officer for the Meepago region Agus Tebai said that the Papuan people, including those from Meepago, rejected Otsus and the DOBs in the land of Papua. Speakers also said that Otsus and the recently enacted laws on the creation of three new provinces in Papua must be annulled.

Tebai said that the Papuan people were calling for an immediate referendum to determine the future of West Papua. These demands were handed over to the people’s representatives and accepted by three members of the Nabire DPRD.

Manokwari
In Manokwari, PRP protesters gathered on the Amban main road and gave speeches.

The hundreds of demonstrators were blocked by police and prevented from holding a long march to the West Papua DPRD offices. Negotiations between police and the action coordinator achieved nothing and the demonstrators then disbanded in an orderly fashion.

Similar mass actions were also held in Yahukimo, Boven Digoel, Sorong and Kaimana in West Papua province.

Wamena
In Wamena, meanwhile, the Lapago regional PRP conveyed its support for protesters who took to the streets via video. According to PRP Lapago Secretary Namene Elopere there was no action in Wamena for the Lapago region in accordance with the initial schedule because they were still coordinating with the Jayawijaya district police.

Aside from protest in Papua, simultaneous actions were also held in Bali, Ambon (Maluku), Surabaya (East Java), Yogyakarta (Central Java), Bandung (West Java) and Jakarta.

Translated by James Balowski for Indoleft. The original title of the article was Begini Situasi Aksi PRP Hari Ini di Berbagai Daerah.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Civil Organisations Solidarity for Papua Land has condemned Indonesia’s Papua expansion plan of forming three new provinces risks causing new social conflicts.

And the group has urged President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo to cancel the plan, according to a statement reports Jubi.

The group — comprising the Papua Legal Aid Institute (LBH Papua), JERAT Papua, KPKC GKI in Papua Land, YALI Papua, PAHAM Papua, Cenderawasih University’s Human Rights and Environment Democracy Student Unit, and AMAN Sorong — said the steps taken by the House of Representatives of making three draft bills to establish three New Autonomous Regions (DOB) in Papua had created division between the Papuan people.

As well as the existing two provinces (DOB), Papua and West Papua, the region would be carved up to create the three additional provinces of Central Papua, South Papua, and Central Highlands Papua.

The solidarity group noted that various movements with different opinions have expressed their respective aspirations through demonstrations, political lobbying, and even submitting a request for a review of Law No. 2/2021 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 21/2001 on Papua Special Autonomy (Otsus).

These seven civil organisations also noted that the controversy over Papua expansion had led to a number of human rights violations, including the breaking up of protests, as well as police brutality against protesters.

However, the central government continued to push for the Papua expansion, and the House had proposed three bills for the expansion.

Wave of demonstrations
The Civil Organisations Solidarity for Papua Land said it was worried the expansion plan would raise social conflicts between parties with different opinions.

They said such potential for social conflict had been seen through a wave of demonstrations that continue to be carried out by the Papuan people — both those who rejected and supported new autonomous regions.

The potential for conflict could also be seen from the polemic on which area would be the new capital province.

In addition, rumours about the potential for clashes between groups had also been widely circulated on various messaging services and social media.

“All the facts present have only shown that the establishment of new provinces in Papua has triggered the potential for social conflicts,” the solidarity group said.

“This seems to have been noticed by the Papua police as well, as they have urged their personnel to increase vigilance ahead of the House’s plenary session to issue the new Papua provinces laws,” said the group.

The group reminded the government that the New Papua Special Autonomy Law, which is used as the legal basis for the House to propose three Papua expansion bills, was still being reviewed in the Constitutional Court.

Public opinion ignored
Furthermore, the House’s proposal of the bills did not take into account public opinion as mandated by Government Regulation No. 78/2007 on Procedures for the Establishment, Abolition, and Merger of Regions.

“It is the most reasonable path if the Central Government [would] stop the deliberation of the Papua Expansion plan, which has become the source of disagreement among Papuan people.

“We urged the Indonesian President to immediately cancel the controversial plan to avoid escalation of social conflict,” said the Civil Organisations Solidarity for Papua Land.

The solidarity group urged the House’s Speaker to nullify the Special Committee for Formulation of Papua New Autonomous Region Policy, as well as the National Police Chief and the Papuan Governor to immediately take the necessary steps to prevent social conflict in Papua, by implementing Law No. 7/2012 on Handling Social Conflicts.

The seven civil organisations also urged all Papuan leaders not to engage in activities that could trigger conflict between opposing groups over the Papua expansion.

“Papuan community leaders are prohibited from being actively involved in fuelling the polarisation of this issue,” the group said.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Papua Legal Aid Foundation (LBH) director Emanuel Gobay says a participant of a demonstration in Jayapura opposing the creation of new autonomous regions (DOB) in Papua is in a critical condition after being shot by a rubber bullet allegedly fired by a police officer.

Earlier, police forcibly broke up a demonstration opposing new autonomous regions in Papua.

“Yes [the critical injury] was at an action in Waena,” said Gobay when contacted by CNN Indonesia.

Although Gobay said he did not know the exact chronology of events leading up to the shooting, he confirmed that the victim was taking part in an action in front of Mega Waena department store in Jayapura.

“So right when they arrived in front of Mega Waena [the protest] was forcibly broken up, it was at this time that police used rubber bullets and the like. When a rubber bullet was fired it hit one of the protesters,” he said.

According to Gobay, the victim was immediately taken to a Mimika boarding house for treatment by students. He did not have any further information on the victim’s condition.

Gobay added that aside from the person shot by a rubber bullet, another participant suffered injuries after being assaulted by police.

Kicked in the chest
He said the victim was kicked in the chest by a police officer.

“This person ended up unconscious, then they were picked up and taken to the boarding house. Earlier I managed to meet with them, they complained that their chest still hurt because of being kicked. There were several others who were injured,” said Gobay.

Demonstrations against the creation of new autonomous regions and Special Autonomy (Otsus) in several parts of Jayapura were forcibly broken up by police on Tuesday.

One incident, in which police forcibly broke up a peaceful action using a water cannon, was recorded on video and shared on Twitter by Papuan People’s Petition (PRP) spokesperson Jeffry Wenda.

At least seven people were arrested by police during the action, including Wenda, West Papua National Committee (KNPB) spokesperson Ones Suhuniap and Omizon Balingga.

Police have yet to provide detailed information on the person shot by the rubber bullet.

So far they have only announced that they sized a number of pieces of evidence in the form of sharp weapons and materials with the banned Morning Star independence flag motif on them, which were confiscated during a sweep of demonstrators in the Sentani area of Jayapura regency.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was Satu Peserta Demo Tolak DOB Papua Tertembak Peluru Karet.

10/5/22 Yahukimo, West Papua

“New provinces: reject, reject, reject!”

“Special Autonomy: reject, reject, reject!”

“Papua: freedom!”

Video footage only came through today due to poor internet connection. pic.twitter.com/ml6INfI96r

— Veronica Koman 許愛茜 (@VeronicaKoman) May 12, 2022

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Humanitarian Coalition for Papua says that the unilateral creation of three new provinces in Papua by the Indonesian central government is like repeating the management model of Dutch colonial power.

National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) head researcher Cahyo Pamungkas, who is part of the coalition, said that this policy would cause greater mistrust among the Papuan people against the government, reports CNN Indonesia.

“This top-down decentralisation which is being done arbitrarily by the central government is like repeating the model of Dutch power in order to continue exploiting natural resources and controlling the land of Papua,” said Pamungkas in a media release.

Pamungkas, who is also a member of the Papua Peace Network (JDP), said that the new Papua Special Autonomy Law (Otsus) and the policy on creating new provinces would be counter-productive.

Amnesty International Indonesia executive director Usman Hamid said that creating new provinces must involve the Papuan People’s Council (MPR) which represents the cultural interests of indigenous Papuan (OAP).

This is a mandate of Law Number 2/2021 on Papuan Special Autonomy (Otsus Law) as a form of protection for the rights of indigenous Papuans.

“Decentralisation in Papua must involve the MRP as the cultural representatives of OAP. This is regulated under the Otsus Law as a form of protection for the rights of indigenous Papuans,” said Hamid.

Call to wait for court ruling
Public Virtue executive director Miya Irawati said that the government must cancel or postpone the planned creation of new provinces in Papua until there was a ruling by the Constitutional Court (MK) on a challenge against the revisions to the Otsus Law which had been launched by the MRP.

According to Irawati, the move by the House of Representatives’ (DPR) Legislative Body (Baleg) and the government in agreeing to the draft law on the creation of three new provinces in Papua was a setback for democracy in Papua.

“We also urge the government to cancel the planned creation of new provinces in Papua or at least postpone the plan until there is a ruling by the MK in several months time,” said Irawati.

Indonesian Human Rights Watch (Imparsial) researcher Hussein Ahmad is concerned that the policy will be used to justify adding more military commands in Papua which have the potential to increase the level of violence and human rights violations.

“If there are three new provinces then usually this is followed by the formation of three [new] Kodam [Regional Military Commands] and new units underneath it which of course will impact on increasing the number of military troops in Papua,” he said.

The Papua Humanitarian Coalition is a voluntary partnership made up of a number of organisations and individuals including Amnesty International Indonesia, the Indonesian Communion of Churches (PGI) Papua Bureau, Imparsial, the Jakarta Institute for Public Research and Advocacy (Elsam), the Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras), the Democracy Alliance for Papua (ADP), the Land of Papua Peace and Unity of Creation Synod of the Papua Injili Christian Church (KPKC GKI-TP), the Jayapura Diocese Peace and Unity of Creation Justice Secretariat (SKPKC Keuskupan Jayapura), the Public Virtue Research Institute, the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) and BRIN researcher Cahyo Pamungkas.

Aim to ‘improve public services’
DPR Speaker Puan Maharani claimed that the formation of three new provinces was to improve public services and social welfare.

Maharani said the additional provinces were aimed at accelerating even development in the Land of Cenderawasih as Papua is known.

“The additional provinces in the eastern part of Indonesia are intended to accelerate even development in Papua and to better serve the Papuan people,” said Maharani in a media release.

The chairperson of the ruling Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P) Central Leadership Board said that the additional provinces were aimed advancing Papua and increasing the level and dignity of the Papuan people.

Maharani confirmed that the deliberations on the draft law on the creation of the new provinces will still be in line with Law Number 2/2021 on Otsus.

“In the deliberations on this draft law later it will pay attention to the aspirations and needs of the Papuan people”, said Maharani.

Baleg DPR Deputy Chairperson Achmad Baidowi said that the names of the three new provinces could still be changed.

Changed names
Earlier, it had been decided that the names would be Anim Ha for South Papua, Meepago for Central Papua, and Serta Lapago for the Papua Central Highlands.

“If there is a wish to change them, it can be done during the deliberations”, Baidowi told journalists.

Baidowi explained that the traditional names used for the prospective provinces were a recommendation from the Baleg. He claimed that the names were chosen in accordance with the wishes of the public and academic studies.

“Certainly we recommended that the traditional names be included in the draft law. For example Papua Central Highlands would be what, then Central Papua what, South Papua what”, he said.

Earlier, the Baleg agreed to the Draft Law on the Provinces of South Papua, Central Papua and Papua Central Highlands during a plenary meeting held on Wednesday April 6. The draft law will then be taken to a DPR plenary meeting for deliberation.

The draft law regulates the creation of three new provinces which will cover a number of existing regencies.

South Papua will have Merauke as the provincial capital and cover the regencies of Merauke, Mappi, Asmat and Boven Digoel.

Central Papua province’s provincial capital will be Timika and cover the regencies of Mimika, Paniai, Dogiyai, Deyiai, Intan Jaya and Puncak.

Papua Central Highlands provincial capital will be Wamena and cover the regencies of Jayawijaya, Puncak Jaya, Lanny Jaya, Mamberamo Tengah, Nduga, Tolikara, Yahukimo, and Yalimo.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was Koalisi: Pemekaran 3 Provinsi Baru Papua Ulangi Model Belanda.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A global Papuan student welfare advocacy group has condemned the Indonesian government’s disruption of autonomous local education grants supporting studies abroad, branding the move as “assassinating” indigenous human resource development.

The International Alliance of Papuan Student Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) issued an open letter today headed “Do not disturb and hinder [us] — leave us [to] study in peace”, saying that funding changes created under the controversial new autonomy statute would have a crippling impact on education.

Some 125 Papuan students — 41 studying in New Zealand and 84 in the United States — have been ordered home under the new policy removing the 10 percent autonomous education funds allocated to the Melanesian provincial governments and transferring the administration of funds to other departments.

Papuan students studying in Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, Russia and the United Sates are also affected.

The Papua provincial government led by Governor Lukas Enembe has followed a proactive  policy on education with a scholarships programme abroad to invest in the region’s human resources.

“Papuan students, the recipients of the Papuan Provincial Government Foreign Scholarships, are aware and understand that education is one of the human rights guaranteed by the state constitution in Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution and Law No. 20 of 2003 on the National Education System,” the student statement said.

The students also cited international laws concerning human rights endorsed by Indonesia, which “provide legal obligations [on] the government to respect, protect and promote the right to education”.

“Political policies by the central government towards Papua often create bad legal implications for the rights and dignity of indigenous Papuans,” added the statement.

Scholarships, empowerment affected
The students said that amendments to the Special Autonomy Law volume 2, the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2021, the second amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001, and regarding special autonomy for the Papua province and Government Regulation No. 107 of 2021, had led to several priority programmes of the provincial government of Papua being stopped.

“Especially programmes funded from Papua’s special autonomy fund, including
education scholarships, economic empowerment and health,” had been impacted on, the student statement said.

“We are aware and understand that the basis of the Papua provincial government’s decision to repatriate Papuan Students from Abroad in a very large number, which is due to the 10 percent of the Special Autonomy funds for the education sector [being withdrawn] and transferred to other institutions.

“The termination and diversion of 10 percent of the education fund managed by the Papua
provincial government is an assassination of human resource investment for the future of Papua through education.

“We also view that [with] the policy of diverting the allocation of education funds, the central government does not consider [the interests] of the ongoing scholarship programme (Papuan Students Abroad).”

The student statement also said the central Jakarta government’s political policies did not consider human rights, including “the rights of Papuan children to obtain a quality education”.

The students demanded the following:
1. The central government must return the 10 percent of OTSUS funding allocation in the education sector to the Papua provincial government for the continuity and sustainability of the “Governor’s Policy” to develop Papuan human resources through the Papua Foreign Scholarship Programme;
2. The central government must take responsibility for the negative implications of the amendment to Law No. 21 of 2001 concerning OTSUS Papua which has an impact on the Papua Provincial Government’s Foreign Scholarship Programe;
3. The central government should not “kill Papuan human resources” anymore with its political policies; and
4. The central government should take responsibility for policies that have an impact on the 2022 budget (tuition and living costs) for Papua Province Foreign Scholarship recipients.

The statement is signed by the presidents of the Papuan Students Association in Oceania, Papuan Students Association in the United States of America and Canada, Papuan Students Association in Russia, Papua Students Association in Germany and the Papua Students Association in Japan.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Papuan People’s Petition — “Petisi Rakyat Papua” — has called on the Indonesian government to release detained human rights advocate Victor Yeimo and to revoke the special autonomy law (version 2).

Yeimo, international spokesperson of the National Committee of West Papua (KNPB), was arrested by the Indonesian police in Tanah Hitam, Abupura-Jayapura. He was serving as spokesperson of the Papuan People’s Petition.

Yeimo is a prisoner of the Papua High Prosecutor’s Office and is currently being treated at the Jayapura Regional General Hospital Dok II.

Previously, he was detained in the detention cell of the Mobile Brigade Headquarters in Kota Raja Jayapura, Papua.

Yeimo has been receiving treatment at the hospital because of public pressure both nationally and internationally over serious concerns for his declining health.

The Petisi Rakyak Papua (PRP) is aimed to call upon the central government of Indonesia in Jakarta to revoke the special autonomy law (Otsus) that was passed prematurely by Jakarta in November 2021 without public hearings and considering the voices and demands of the Papuan people brought by 113 organisations.

The call of rejecting the extension of the special autonomy law which expired last year was echoed a few years ago.

No benefit for Papuans
The petition says that since the central government granted the special autonomy law, the indigenous people of West Papua have not benefited. The law itself has become controversial.

The national spokesperson for the petition, Jefry Wenda, said that apart from the 113 organisations making submissions, 718,179 votes of grassroots people opposed support for extension of the special autonomy law. However, the central government of Indonesia has refused to listen.

Before the widespread rejection of the law from the grassroots level, the provincial government of Papua had tried to negotiate with the central government many times, but Jakarta has been reluctant to consider the provincial government’s aspirations.

This year, the Papuan People’s Petition reaffirms the call by stating:

1. PRP is a manifestation of the political stance of the West Papuan people who reject the existence and sustainability of Otsus in West Papua;
2. The PRP will oversee the attitude of the people of West Papua in fighting for the right to self-determination peacefully and democratically;
3. PRP rejected Otsus and agreed to continue raising the Papuan People’s Petition (PRP) for the third stage;
4. The PRP rejects all forms of compromise and political representation outside of the attitude of the West Papuan people;
5. The PRP is committed to promoting democratic unity in the struggle for the national liberation of West Papua; and
6. PRP urges the release of international spokesman Victor Yeimo and all West Papuan political prisoners without conditions!

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A pro-independence movement in West Papua has appealed to several Western countries — including New Zealand — to provide urgent humanitarian help by supplying covid vaccines directly to the Papuans to cope with the “double crisis” in the Indonesian-ruled region.

Benny Wenda, interim president of the Provisional Government of West Papua, said today he had made the appeal by writing to the foreign ministers of Britain, Australia, New Zealand and the US.

“I have also written to the President of the European Commission, the WHO [World Health Organisation] and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the escalating covid-19 situation in our land,” he said in a statement.

“This new crisis is a further existential threat to my people.”

Indonesia had caused a double crisis for the people of West Papua by launching military operations in the middle of the pandemic, Wenda said, as he had warned.

“Just yesterday, villagers from the West Moskona district were attacked by troops after attending a peaceful worship session against ‘Special Autonomy’, fleeing to the forests and the city of Bintuni,” he said.

“Woman and children are afraid to return to their villages in case the military and police arrest or attack them.”

50,000 plus displaced
“More than 50,000 people have been displaced in Nduga, Puncak and Intan Jaya over the past two and a half years. Their homes have been destroyed, their churches burned and their schools occupied by soldiers.

“They are left in internal displacement camps, where the virus will spread rapidly. Already in the cities, patients are being turned away or treated in cars outside the hospital.”

Western countries and the WHO had an urgent moral obligation to give vaccine doses direct the local Papuan government for distribution, Wenda said.

“As the 2018 Asmat health crisis showed, Jakarta cannot be trusted with the health of the West Papuan people,” he said.

“Over nearly 60 years of colonisation we have seen a chronic failure to develop health facilities in West Papua, leaving us dying on top of the natural riches Indonesia is extracting. If Jakarta is allowed to hold the reigns of vaccine development, my people will suffer further.”

Wenda said the developments were part of a “continued genocide against my people”.

“Our forests have been torn down, our mountains decapitated, our way of life destroyed. Indonesia restricts healthcare and enforces a colonial education whilst killing anyone who speaks out for self-determination,” Wenda said.

“Launching military operations in the middle of a pandemic is a policy designed to further wipe out our population. We need urgent international assistance, direct to the local Papuan government, not through the colonial occupier.”

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The unanimous House of Representatives decision in Indonesia last week to endorse the revised Papuan Special Autonomy Law shows, yet again, the propensity of the Jakarta elite to dictate the future of the territory, despite persistent calls to honor local demands.

This “new deal” is not likely to end violence in the resource-rich provinces, which stems in large part from Jakarta’s refusal to settle past human rights abuses there.

On paper, the revision offers some of the substantial changes needed to help Papuans close the gap with the rest of the nation. For example, it extends special autonomy funding for Papua and West Papua to 2041 and increases its amount from 2 percent to 2.25 percent of the general allocation fund, with a particular focus on health and education.

The Finance Ministry estimates that over the next 20 years, the two provinces will receive Rp 234.6 trillion (US$16 billion).

The revisions also strengthen initiatives to empower native Papuans in the policy-making process by allocating one fourth of the Regional Legislative Council to native, nonpartisan Papuans by appointment. They also mandate that 30 percent of those seats go to native Papuan women.

Under the new law, a new institution will be established to “synchronize, harmonize, evaluate and coordinate” the implementation of special autonomy. Headed by the Vice President, the new body will answer to the President and will have a secretariat in Papua. The previous government formed a presidential unit to accelerate development in Papua and West Papua (UP4B), but President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo dissolved it shortly after taking office in 2014.

The chairman of the special House committee deliberating the revision, Komarudin Watubun, a Papuan, described the new law as “a breakthrough” as it would require the government to consult the Papuan and West Papuan governments in the drafting of implementing regulations.

But this is where the core problem of the special autonomy law lies. In democracy, respecting the will of the public, including dissenting views, is vital to the lawmaking process, precisely because the laws will affect that public. Public scrutiny should precede rather than follow a law, but in the case of the special autonomy law, that mechanism was dropped from the House’s deliberation, which lasted seven months, under the pretext of social distancing to contain the spread of covid-19.

The Jakarta elite have clearly left the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) behind as a representation of the customs and will of the provinces’ people, as well as the Papuan Legislative Council (DPRP), not to mention civil society groups, tribes and those who mistrust special autonomy and the government. In the words of MRP chief Timotius Murib, the revisions reveal Jakarta’s lack of good intentions for Papuan development.

This is not the first time the executive and legislative powers have colluded to bypass public consultation on a highly controversial bill. The tactic worked in the passage of the Job Creation Law last year, as well as the new Mining Law, and the approach is apparently repeating in the ongoing deliberation of the Criminal Code revision.

As long as the obsolete, Jakarta-centered approach remains intact, Papuan peace and prosperity will remain elusive.

This Jakarta Post editorial was published on 21 July 2021.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The West Papuan Council of Churches (WPCC) has condemned the Indonesian government’s Special Autonomy (Otsus) law ratified by the Jakarta parliament last week, describing it as racist and warning that Papuans could “become extinct”.

The WPCC was speaking in an online forum organised by the International Coalition for Papua (ICP) last Wednesday — the day before the draft bill was ratified.

It appealed to the Pacific and international community to stop the Indonesian government’s racism toward the West Papuans which was being perpetuated by the Otsus Law, widely condemned by Papuans.

The forum included representatives of the World Council of Churches (WCC), the Pacific Islands Association of Non-Governmental Organisations (PIANGO), the United Evangelical Mission (UEM), the West Papua Project, the Franciscans International, and the Pacific Conference of Churches (PCC).

The Evangelical Church in Indonesia (GIDI) president Dorman Wandikbo said the Otsus Law had become an enabler for gross human rights violations in West Papua in the past 20 years, such as the Biak, Abepura, Paniai and Wamena massacres.

“Therefore, the Papuan people reject the continuation of the Otsus Law,” he said.

Wandikbo cited the result of a study conducted by the Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI), which said the root of the problems in Papua was racism, which had caused Papuans to suffer culturally, politically, and economically despite being given a special autonomy.

Appeal for international help
He asked for the international community’s help in underlining the rejection of continuation of the Otsus Law.

Wandikbo also said that the covid-19 pandemic must not be used as an excuse to obstruct the United Nations special envoy on human rights from entering West Papua.

“This is an emergency situation. We, the Papuan people, will be extinct in 20 or 30 years if something is not done,” he said.

“God put us here in the land of Papua not to be killed, enslaved, nor called monkeys.”

Human rights lawyer Veronica Koman said international organisations such as the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Organisation for Migration (IOM), and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) were effectively banned from entering the region.

Reverend Socratez Yoman of the WPCC, who is also the head of the Aliance of West Papua Baptist Churches, said that Indonesian lawmakers had been debating the Special Autonomy Law while ignoring the law itself, which required the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) and the Papuan Legislation Council (DPRP) to be included in the evaluation and amendment of the law.

“In fact, the MRP and DPRP are not included in the deliberation process. Only Jakarta ha[d] to agree, the Papuan people are left out,” Reverend Yoman said.

Division into more provinces
Reverend Yoman also said that under the upcoming Otsus Law, the Indonesian government planned to divide the region — currently two provinces, Papua and West Papua — into more provinces despite the low population in Papua.

“Who is this [plan] really for? It will only result in more military basis, more migrants coming from the other provinces in Indonesia, and we will be a minority in our own land and eventually be extinct,” he said.

In the online forum, Sister Rode Wanimbo of the WPCC also gave updates on the situation in West Papua, as she had just returned from Puncak regency’s capital of Ilaga last Tuesday.

“There are 11 civilians who have been shot dead in Ilaga from April to July this year. There are also nine churches destroyed and bombed by the Indonesian military from the air,” she said.

Wanimbo said that there were currently 4862 displaced people accommodated in six districts in Puncak, not including the displaced people from Paluga village and Tegelobak village.

“They don’t build a tent, the community let the displaced people stay in their homes. No health services for these displaced people,” he said.

Food aid limited
“They got food aid from the local government once, but mostly it was from the church, parliament members, and the people,” he said.

Responding to the WPCC updates on the latest conditions in West Papua, WCC director of International Affairs Peter Prove said that the WCC had held a bilateral meeting in Geneva with the Indonesian government and other diplomats in a hope to bring the Papuan issue to light.

They were especially trying to address the internally displaced people in West Papua and pushing for humanitarian actors to be allowed to enter the region.

“I have also talked to the UN Special Adviser that West Papua has a high risk for genocide,” he said.

Republished with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As many as 714,066 Papuans and 112 organisations which are part of the Papuan People’s Petition (PRP) have rejected last week’s enactment into law of revisions to Law Number 21/2001 on Papua Special Autonomy (Otsus), reports CNN Indonesia.

They believe that special autonomy is not the answer to resolving the problems in the land of Papua.

“There’s no such thing as Otsus in the Papuan people’s dictionary. The Papuan people are asking for the right to self-determination,” said Rawarap from the group West Papua Youth and Student National Solidarity (Sonamapa) during a PRP event broadcast on the Suara Papua TV YouTube channel on Friday, July 16.

Rawarap believes that special autonomy is a product conceived out of an illicit affair between the political elite in Papua and Jakarta. According to Rawarap, the policy has not accommodated the Papuan people at all.

“Otsus is like an illegitimate child conceived during a sex party between the Papua elite and the Jakarta elite. We explicitly reject Otsus because Otsus is an illicit product. It’s the result of an illicit affair,” he added.

Rawarap said that the decision by the House of Representatives (DPR) to ratify the revisions into law would not in any way make Papuans feel proud.

More than 20 years of the implementation of special autonomy has failed to bring prosperity to the Papuan people.

‘Still many mama-mama‘
“The fact also is that many have already explained that over the 20 years Otsus has been in force in the land of Papua, there are still many mama-mama [traditional Papuan women traders] who sell on the side of the road,” he said.

“Still using cardboard, sacks as mats, sitting on the road selling areca.

“The fact also is that there are still many Papuan children who drop out of school and cannot continue their studies at tertiary institutions because education is expensive, yet there is money from Otsus.

“But, the fact is that many Papuan children drop out of study or do not continue school, and the unemployment rate is high — what is there to be proud of with Otsus?,” he asked.

Rawarap then touched on the findings of the National Statistics Agency (BPS) which says that the Human Development Index for Papua and West Papua provinces are the lowest in the country despite Otsus being in place for two decades.

“Sonamapa — along with the 112 organisations involved in the Papua People’s Petition reject Otsus — explicitly states that we reject Otsus Chapter II resulting out of secret revisions [to the Otsus Law] by the [DPR’s] special committee,” he said.

PRP spokesperson Sam Awom said that group rejected all forms of compromise with any deliberations on special autonomy which failecd to involve ordinary Papuan people.

‘Return mandate to the people’
“He also asked policy makers to return a mandate to the Papuan people to determine their own future,” he said.

“We demand the immediate return to the Papuan people [of the right] to choose and determine their own future on whether they accept Otsus or independence as a country”, said Awom, reading out a statement.

Awom declared that they would hold a national strike if the demands of the Papuan people were not followed up.

“If the petition [against Otsus] is not followed up, then we will hold a national, peaceful civil strike throughout the territory of West Papua,” he said.

Coordinating Minister for Security, Politics and Legal Affairs Mahfud MD has stated that the government will prioritise dialogue with “separatists” seeking self-determination and independence in Papua and use law enforcement against alleged armed criminal groups (KKB).

“On the Papua issue the government will use an approach prioritising prosperity which is comprehensive and covers all aspects,” he said.

“In confronting separatism, the government will prioritise dialogue.”

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “714 Ribu Orang dan 112 Organisasi Diklaim Tolak Otsus Papua”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A group of Papuan students in front of the House of Representatives (DPR) building in Jakarta, who were planning to hold a protest action opposing the extension of Papuan Special Autonomy (Otsus), have been arrested and taken to the Metro Jaya regional police headquarters.

“Around 15 people were taken away and put into a police crowd control vehicle”, one of the participants, Ambrosius Mulait, told Tirto.

Mulait said he did not know the reason for the arrest yesterday because the group had not yet arrived at the rally location when the arrests took place.

Two days ago, said Mulait, the group sent a written notification of the action to police, but the police did not issue a permit for the demonstration.

He suspects that this was the reason for the arrest – as well as the pretext of Covid-19 health protocols which prohibit crowds from gathering.

Although they tried to negotiate with the police to be allowed to demonstrate, this did not succeed.

Mulait and the other participants who were not arrested are still being held in front of the parliament under police guard.

“How can Papuans convey their right to an opinion opposing Otsus, but are always silenced. Today we were silenced,” he said.

A similar incident occurred on 27 October 2020 when demonstrators near the Cenderawasih University in Jayapura, Papua, were dispersed and 13 were arrested.

Action coordinator Mani Iyaba said that based on directives issued by the Jayapura district police, “Any protesters can be beaten, trampled underfoot”.

Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “15 Demonstran Tolak Otsus Papua Jilid II Ditangkap di Kompleks DPR”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz