Category: indonesia

  • On 12 November 1994, a group of 29 young Timorese men gathered to protest outside the US embassy in Jakarta. They were there to make sure the world did not forget what happened at the Santa Cruz cemetery in Dili on the same day three years earlier: a massacre of more than 250 Timorese civilians by Indonesian troops.

    As the Indonesian police arrived on the scene, the protestors jumped the fence seeking sanctuary from their batons. This act turned a fleeting protest into 12-day long occupation of the embassy’s parking lot. While world leaders, including US president Bill Clinton, were set to meet for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit in Bogor, these members of the clandestine Timorese resistance pulled off a diplomatic coup by focusing international attention not just on the Indonesian economic miracle but also on the unfinished business of its illegal occupation of East Timor.

    On 12 November last year I was in Dili, where at night residents lit the footpaths and streets with candles remembering the people killed in the 1991 Santa Cruz massacre. It is a day of symbolism and reverence in Timor-Leste: a day of tragedy, but also arguably a turning point in the resistance and the international struggle for recognition and independence. My first reporting on the country as a young journalist started after the massacre, which is now memorialised as a pivotal event in the narrative of Timor-Leste at the Timorese Resistance and Archive Museum. On the day I visited the museum its halls were mostly quiet. I was the only visitor, giving the place feel of a shrine. In the exhibit on Santa Cruz, the eerie soundtrack of wailing sirens from Max Stahl’s footage, which immortalised the day of the massacre, the only sound.

    The museum also has a larger-than-life art installation remembering the “storming” of the US embassy in Jakarta, which creatively immortalises in the moment the protestors broke into the embassy to bring the world’s attention to the violence of Indonesian occupation in the wake of Santa Cruz. It gives the individual act of each of the fence jumpers significance in the broader arc of the resistance. One super-sized man hurdles the fence. “East Timorese youth storm the US embassy in Jakarta and demand the release of Timorese prisoners,” reads the caption.

    But why is this the only text in the exhibit on what was one of many embassy invasions, protests, and asylum bids over many years? Entering embassies in Jakarta was a tool and tactic of the clandestine movement used frequently, involving hundreds of people. But in the museum, this is the sole mention. Each single jump was a personal and political act, responding to and often escaping from the repression Indonesian rule, which between 1976 and 1999 administered Timor Timur—East Timor—as its 27th province. Foreign correspondents called them “break-ins” as they were illegal acts and unlawful entries onto protected diplomatic premises. But they served different purposes as protests, escape routes, and ways to raise voices of Timorese in international negotiations over the region’s future.

    As an accredited foreign correspondent in Jakarta between 1994 and 1998, I saw and reported on many of these break-ins. So many, in fact, the French ambassador once accused me of being part of the clandestine movement. My personal archive from those days holds many of these reports but not records of all these incidents. Over the years, I have been adding documents on my cloud drives. I have told stories over Portuguese wine that never made the wire. It was while recounting these tales last year in Dili that a Timorese friend urged me to write more of them down before we all forgot them. By doing so, I hope to distinguish art from history and fact from recollection and add to what is publicly known about this part of Timor-Leste’s struggle for independence.

    • • • • • • • • • • • •

    In November 1994 I was new to the beat, and late to the US embassy protest. Less than six weeks on the job as an Agence France Presse (AFP) correspondent, I did not have good sources. While reporting the news from East Timor was a central part of my job, the clandestine movement were not in my contact book, and none of its operatives knew my name. I was only there at all because on the day Timorese activists had decided that our rival Reuters should not have an exclusive. More publicity was good for the cause.

    On this Saturday morning, leaders from RENETIL, the Timor-Leste Students’ National Resistance, delegated one of their number to anonymously tip off AFP and the BBC, co-located in a bungalow on Jalan Indramayu. The embassy was 10 minutes away in a three-wheeled orange Bajaj taxi. I arrived without a photographer or camera as the police moved in. Thinking on their feet, initially the 28 protestors scrambled over the fence to evade arrest. “It was not our intention to enter the embassy grounds at all,” RENETIL leader Domingos Alves said in an interview with TAPOL Bulletin.

    However, after the police intercepted a large group of Timorese traveling from other parts of Java by train, Alves, who was the group’s spokesman, told TAPOL the protestors lost their element of surprise. Many of them were on their first trip to Jakarta and had no idea the train trip would end with a flight to Portugal. Research by Edie Bowles, who is writing a history of the Timorese resistance, has found only Alves and one other RENETIL leader discussed jumping the fence and seeking asylum ahead of time, and only as a response to rapid police action. The protestors arrived at the embassy with journalists and the police waiting for them. Suddenly, the RENETIL leaders put their Plan B into action.

    Once in the embassy, with APEC to start within days, the protestors had the spotlight, a platform, and a captive audience of international journalists in town for Suharto’s party. For ten days they held court, with Alves briefing us three times a day with demands to meet President Clinton and free East Timor. The occupation of the US embassy was a mentioned in every news story as the “leader of the free world” came and went.

    Source: Tapol Bulletin No. 130 August 1995

    But once APEC passed, so did the world’s attention. The Timorese initially told us they did not want asylum, but after embarrassing Suharto it was a safer choice than being handed over to the police. Delegates from International Committee of Red Cross (ICRC) in Jakarta negotiated safe passage for the original 28, and one more protestor who had audaciously jumped in later. I watched and filed on my Nokia brick phone as the ICRC bussed them to Jakarta’s airport and onwards to “repatriation” to Portugal, a country none of them had visited, but which regarded all Timorese born before 1983 as being its citizens.

    In its lengthy history of the conflict, the Report of the Commission for Reception, Truth, and Reconciliation (CAVR), Chega!, has two paragraphs on the embassy break-ins, writing that Timorese students turned many foreign embassies in Jakarta into fortresses as they jumped fences to seek asylum. The protest at the US embassy was a “stunning public relations success organized by RENETIL.” The Chega! findings are based testimony of RENETIL members, including Virgilio Gutteres, Avelino Coelho, Naldo Rei, and Mariano Sabino Lopes, the current deputy prime minister. It said the break-ins were a well-coordinated strategy that the student group executed in in coordination with Xanana Gusmão, with whom they had direct and regular access during his detention at Jakarta’s Cipinang prison. The report only mentions three actual incidents: the US embassy break-in, a November 1995 asylum claim at the French embassy, and December 1995 protests at the Russian and Dutch embassies. The CAVR did not tally the numbers of those who entered the embassies either seeking asylum or to protest.

    It is an understated reference to a movement that involved hundreds of people over more than a decade. From TAPOL Bulletins archived online by Victoria University and my own reporting, I know asylum bids were unsuccessfully made at least four occasions before events at the US embassy. The first bid I found was from October 1986 when four students, released from detention, sought asylum in the Netherlands embassy, which in those days represented Portugal’s diplomatic interests in Indonesia. TAPOL reported that the asylum bid was unsuccessful, writing the Timorese were “tricked” into leaving after being promised Portuguese passports later. In June 1989, TAPOL recorded another attempt by six Timorese students on the run to seek refuge in the Japanese, Swedish, and Vatican embassies was “callously” rebuffed. The first successful asylum bid was when on 23 June 1993 four Timorese entered the Finnish and three the Swedish embassy. The ICRC quietly arranged travel documents for the seven to travel to Portugal on 29 December that year after on “humanitarian grounds.”

    After the November 1994 US embassy sit-in, the next known incident was on 25 September 1995, when five men identified as having survived the Santa Cruz massacre entered the British embassy in Central Jakarta. After five days, the ICRC flew them to Portugal. In quick succession, on 7 November eight entered the Netherlands embassy, then on 14 November, as APEC leaders were meeting in Japan, 21 jumped the Japanese embassy fence on Jalan Thamrin. Five others from this group, jumped the French embassy fence across the road on 16 November. With practice, it became a well-oiled machine: a pre-dawn break-in could lead to an evening KLM flight.

    Population loss in Portuguese Timor during WW2 revisited

    A new archival find suggests that Japanese occupation was more devastating than previously thought

    These were part of a larger group of Timorese who had arrived on the PELNI boat from Dili after an October 1995 crackdown on the clandestine movement, independence activists, and students. On 19 November, now reporting for Reuters, I quoted UNTIL Rector Armindo Maia as saying, “the situation here in East Timor is one of terror, tension, and persecution […] I am not surprised these youngsters choose to go to foreign embassies as people in their position are generally in a hopeless situation”. The next day, I filed that another four Timorese entered the French embassy. The Indonesian foreign minister Ali Alatas questioned whether the claims of persecution were true, but was happy to see them quickly go. Within two days of each break-in, the ICRC had all these students on the flight to Amsterdam and onwards to Lisbon.

    Days later, on 7 December 1995—the 20th anniversary of Indonesian invasion of East Timor—arge groups of Timorese and Indonesian activists jumped into the embassies of Russia and the Netherlands as a protest and not an asylum bid. Shouting “Free Xanana Gusmão”, 58 activists entered the Dutch embassy in Kuningan; on Jalan Thamrin, 47 jumped the low fence at the old Russian embassy, next to the Japanese and across the road from the French missions. I reported that police blocked 19 protestors who had tried to enter the French embassy at the same time.

    With their point made and reported, police escorted the protestors off the premises of the Dutch and Russian embassies within two or three days, interrogated and then released them. Once again, RENETIL activists armed only with banners and their own quick wits and collaborating with Indonesian counterparts, including from the People’s Democratic Party (PRD), were reminding the world of the Suharto regime’s repression, and the ongoing occupation of East Timor.

    In 1996, asylum bids continued. On 12 January, five young men entered the New Zealand embassy, and two women entered the Australian embassy seeking asylum. The ICRC quickly organised their passage to Portugal with three days. On 18 March, as Timorese leaders gathered to meet for an UN-sponsored dialogue in Austria, two young men sought refuge in each of the Polish and French embassies. Around this time, I recall that still others went into the Spanish embassy on Jalan Wahid Hasyim behind the Sarinah department store—I recently met one of those men in a Dili restaurant, but cannot find records of ever having reported this 1996 incident.

    • • • • • • • • • • • •

    The waves of asylum bids and the ease with which Timorese could enter embassies was a growing concern of the Jakarta diplomatic community. They began by hardening their buildings, extending fences, adding razor wire, and allowing local security guards to be more aggressive in their responses. On 16 April 1996, local guards beat and expelled ten Timorese asylum seekers who entered the German embassy in front of a Reuters TV crew. After the ICRC intervened, the young men went to Portugal.

    On 16 October 1996 I got an early morning pager message from my clandestine contact “Ran”, who I now know as Timorese journalist Naldo Rei. Either using this way, or a message on my answering machine, he would alert me a break-in was imminent hours before it was set to take place. By this time, we had a routine: Naldo would tell me where and when an asylum bid would take place, and I would show up and report it.

    On this day, I remember walking from my apartment on Jalan Kebon Sirih to the French embassy on Jalan Thamrin. We all knew the drill. Using my point and shoot Nikon that I always carried on my hip, I photographed the three men with their banner and their ID cards (KTPs) to prove the bona fides as Timorese. Tape recorder in hand, I asked them why they were there. “We are seeking political asylum in Portugal. We feel that our homeland has been taken over by the Indonesian military,” one of the men, who identified himself as Sabino D’Arujo, 26, told me. “In East Timor we are always chased by the troops of the Suharto regime,” said a second man, named as Alberto Da Silva, 23. I reported the third man as Anatolio Francesco Arujo, 21.

    After recording their words, I walked back to the Reuters bureau on Jalan Merdeka Selatan. It was early, so I filed the story to the London desk and before going for a morning swim at a nearby hotel. I arrived at the bureau for the regular day around 8am to the news from the Hong Kong desk that our rivals at AFP were reporting that the French embassy had ejected three “Javanese thieves”. We quickly developed the film from that morning’s break-in and put on the wire pictures of three “thieves” holding a Free East Timor flag. It was embarrassing for my former AFP colleagues, who had accepted the embassy’s “official” version of events. The ICRC head of delegation was livid and publicly chastised the French. I understood that days later these three men were all on their way to Portugal through other embassies with the ICRC’s help.

    Reuters regarded each break-in as an international diplomatic incident worth reporting. Under directions from my bureau chief Ian Mackenzie, I was to cover them all. I would get up in the dark to confirm the break-in with my own eyes and put it on the wire. Years later Naldo would explain our source–reporter relationship in this way: “you cared, you kept on showing up, so we kept on calling you.” While we did not always report it, if we could speak with asylum seekers, we did take down the names and photograph their ID cards. When contacted, we shared them with human rights groups tracking these incidents.

    The French ambassador was suspicious of how I was always there and told a meeting of his EU colleagues that I was a member of the clandestine movement organising the break-ins. After the UK embassy told us about this, my boss complained, and the French envoy withdrew his claim. I was under orders: report every one of them. For my stories on East Timor, senior officials in the Indonesian information and foreign ministries twice threatened me with expulsion. Once again, when called by my boss, they explained away the threat as a “misunderstanding.” As a partner of the national news agency Antara, Reuters’ business news service was a cash cow for the State Secretariat that they were reluctant to upset, and this gave us some protection to report uncomfortable truths about Indonesia under Suharto.

    If we did not receive tips, and embassies did not talk, we could not report a break-in. This means it was hard to understand how many bids were unsuccessful. I have breadcrumbs in my reporting of references to Timorese asylum seekers being ejected from the Hungarian, Dutch, and Swiss embassies by security guards throughout October 1996, but no separate reports. The Timorese were a nuisance, and embassies did not want to show sympathy or solidarity for their cause. I do not have access to Reuters database and cannot find all my stories, including the one of the expulsions of Timorese by the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization from his Menteng office and residence. However, I still remember his words: “I told them if they try again, I will shoot them.” It was no idle threat, as we knew he was armed. “I thought they were Mossad agents,” I recall him saying.

    On 25 March 1997, 33 Timorese students broke into the Austrian embassy while UN envoy Jamsheed Marker was in Jakarta to talk to the government about East Timor. The students demanded to meet Marker, and after a small delegation were able to deliver a petition, they all left. The last asylum bid I have records of took place on 19 September 1997. After Timorese bomb makers in Central Java had an accident, they blew the cover on the Black Brigade, a small unit engaged in buying ammunition and other supplies for the resistance lead by Avelino Coelho da Silva. Together with his wife and three children, Coelho and Nuno Saldanha evaded capture and made it to Jakarta and to sanctuary in the Austrian embassy. This was Coelho’s second attempt at asylum, as he had been in the unsuccessful June 1986 group. The modus operandi that had worked so well with ICRC was over. This time Indonesian authorities stood firm as the security forces wanted these “terrorists.” Authorities refused to allow them to leave for Portugal. This underground railway had come to the end of the line.

    My reporting is incomplete and TAPOL, which based in London and relied on our stories, has few other reports on asylum bids in 1996 and 1997. Around this time, my contact Naldo left to study in Australia and the tips abruptly stopped coming. The political and economic plates in Indonesia were shifting after the New Order apparatchiks orchestrated an internal party coup to destabilise Megawati Sukarnoputri and her opposition PDI. The regime used the PRD as scapegoats for the Jakarta riots of July 1996. They underlined the fragility of Suharto’s rule, even after Golkar easily won the May 1997 elections, setting up another term in office for the former general. In August 1997, Bank Indonesia floated the rupiah, and krismon—the Asian Financial Crisis—was underway. The story was now the how and when of Suharto’s demise, which came in May 1998 after widespread rioting. Amid the chaos and news overload, the Timorese in the Austrian embassy quietly left, probably with the ICRC’s help, when we were not paying attention.

    The ICRC was always modest and diplomatic about their role in helping Timorese asylum seekers. They played a much bigger role than I knew at the time. As research for this piece, I reviewed two decades of ICRC annual reports and the organisation’s data is neither consistent nor complete. A January 1994 press release, for example, records the six asylum seekers they facilitated leaving in December 1993 after almost six months in the Swedish and Finnish embassies, but it is not mentioned in the 1993 annual report.

    The ICRC’s 1994 Annual Report notes the role its Jakarta delegation played in resolving the US embassy incident by facilitating the departure of the 29 protestors to Portugal and how it had an ongoing role in following the cases of Timorese in Jakarta, “including those who had been prevented from joining the group in the United States embassy compound.” In 1995, after “the Timorese sought asylum in the embassies of France, Japan, the Netherlands and Russia. They were all subsequently transferred to Portugal under ICRC auspices”, but it does not say how many left. The following year the delegation “organized the transfer to Portugal of 189 East Timorese (former civil servants in the Portuguese colonial administration and hardship cases) who had sought asylum in foreign embassies” but does not say from which missions they came. In 1997, the ICRC said it “organized the transfer to Portugal of 38 East Timorese” followed by another 34 in in 1998.

    By 1999, the asylum bids had stopped as ICRC’s delegations in Jakarta focused the mediating the violence ahead of the August independence referendum in East Timor and delivering humanitarian aid after the crisis it triggered and during the transition to UN administration. While I was aware of 122 Timorese they helped to leave Jakarta embassies, their stated figures of 296 repatriations to Portugal are more almost two and a half times of what I knew of as a reporter.

    • • • • • • • • • • • •

    30 years later, not all of them came back. But when in Dili I still bump into those who jumped the Jakarta embassy fences and the clandestine members who organised it. I never heard again of the three “Javanese thieves” in the French Embassy. I hope they are middle aged men with families now, as I am. When I worked in the office of the UN Transitional Administrator, I would sit across from Coelho, a member of the National Consultative Council and head of the Timorese Socialist Party (PST). Whenever I visited his office, he always had a copy of Das Kapital within reach.

    Once, at a US embassy reception, I ran into the RENETIL leader and US embassy sit-in spokesman Alves, when he was then a foreign affairs advisor to the Timor-Leste president. In a historic irony, in 2014 Alves was appointed as Dili’s ambassador to Washington, D.C. Arsenio Bano, who was also in the US embassy in November 1994, became a FRETILIN minister for social solidarity, and I worked within him as he led Timor-Leste NGO Forum, an umbrella organisation for civil society. Last year I had coffee with him on his last day as the President of the Special Administrative Region of Oé-Cusse Ambeno (RAEOA).

    When Rei and I were recently going to eat in Dili, we ran into one asylum seeker who was then an ambassador to ASEAN country. Gutteres, the tipster who told me of the US embassy protest, is the Ombudsman for Human Rights and Justice. Gil outed himself to me years ago, but when I last saw him in Dili, we had time for a coffee, a chat, and even a Zoom call with my wife. It was not just the few hurried words over the phone in Jakarta on the morning of 12 November 1994.

    Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to New Mandala

    Keep up to date with opinionated, informed and accessible commentary on Southeast Asia from leading researchers. Leave your email address in the field below and you’ll receive new posts in your inbox as they are published.

    The post Break-ins and breaking news: the Timorese fence-jumpers of Jakarta appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • By Victor Mambor in Jayapura

    Just one day after President Prabowo Subianto’s inauguration, a minister announced plans to resume the transmigration programme in eastern Indonesia, particularly in Papua, saying it was needed for enhancing unity and providing locals with welfare.

    Transmigration is the process of moving people from densely populated regions to less densely populated ones in Indonesia, Southeast Asia’s most populous country with 285 million people.

    The ministry intends to revitalise 10 zones in Papua, potentially using local relocation rather than bringing in outsiders.

    The programme will resume after it was officially paused in Papua 23 years ago.

    “We want Papua to be fully united as part of Indonesia in terms of welfare, national unity and beyond,” Muhammad Iftitah Sulaiman Suryanagara, the Minister of Transmigration, said during a handover ceremony on October 21.

    Iftitah promised strict evaluations focusing on community welfare rather than on relocation numbers. Despite the minister’s promises, the plan drew an outcry from indigenous Papuans who cited social and economic concerns.

    Papua, a remote and resource-rich region, has long been a flashpoint for conflict, with its people enduring decades of military abuse and human rights violations under Indonesian rule.

    Human rights abuses
    Prabowo, a former army general, was accused of human rights abuses in his military career, including in East Timor (Timor-Leste) during a pro-independence insurgency against Jakarta rule.

    Simon Balagaize, a young Papuan leader from Merauke, highlighted the negative impacts of transmigration efforts in Papua under dictator Suharto’s New Order during the 1960s.

    “Customary land was taken, forests were cut down, and the indigenous Malind people now speak Javanese better than their native language,” he told BenarNews.

    The Papuan Church Council stressed that locals desperately needed services, but could do without more transmigration.

    “Papuans need education, health services and welfare – not transmigration that only further marginalises landowners,” Reverend Dorman Wandikbo, a member of the council, told BenarNews.

    Transmigration into Papua has sparked protests over concerns about reduced job opportunities for indigenous people, along with broader political and economic impacts.

    Apei Tarami, who joined a recent demonstration in South Sorong, Southwest Papua province, warned of consequences, stating that “this policy affects both political and economic aspects of Papua.”

    Human rights ignored
    Meanwhile, human rights advocate Theo Hasegem criticised the government’s plans, arguing that human rights issues are ignored and non-Papuans could be endangered because pro-independence groups often target newcomers.

    “Do the president and vice-president guarantee the safety of those relocated from Java,” Hasegem told BenarNews.

    The programme, which dates to 1905, has continued through various administrations under the guise of promoting development and unity.

    Indonesia’s policy resumed post-independence on December 12, 1950, under President Sukarno, who sought to foster prosperity and equitable development.

    It also aimed to promote social unity by relocating citizens across regions.

    Transmigration involving 78,000 families occurred in Papua from 1964 to 1999, according to statistics from the Papua provincial government. That would equal between 312,000 and 390,000 people settling in Papua from other parts of the country, assuming the average Indonesian family has 4 to 5 people.

    The programme paused in 2001 after a Special Autonomy Law required regional regulations to be followed.

    20241104-ID-PHOTO-TRANSMIGRATION FIVE.jpg
    Students hold a rally at Abepura Circle in Jayapura, the capital of Indonesia’s Papua Province, yesterday to protest against Indonesia’s plan to resume a transmigration programme, Image: Victor Mambor/BenarNews

    Legality questioned
    Papuan legislator John N.R. Gobay questioned the role of Papua’s six new autonomous regional governments in the transmigration process. He cited Article 61 of the law, which mandates that transmigration proceed only with gubernatorial consent and regulatory backing.

    Without these clear regional regulations, he warned, transmigration lacks a strong legal foundation and could conflict with special autonomy rules.

    He also pointed to a 2008 Papuan regulation stating that transmigration should proceed only after the Indigenous Papuan population reaches 20 million. In 2023, the population across six provinces of Papua was about 6.25 million, according to Indonesia’s Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS).

    Gobay suggested prioritising local transmigration to better support indigenous development in their own region.

    ‘Entrenched inequality’
    British MP Alex Sobel, chair of the International Parliamentarians for West Papua, expressed concern over the programme, noting its role in drastic demographic shifts and structural discrimination in education, land rights and employment.

    “Transmigration has entrenched inequality rather than promoting prosperity,” Sobel told BenarNews, adding that it had contributed to Papua remaining Indonesia’s poorest regions.

    20241104-ID-PAPUA-PHOTO TWO.jpeg
    Pramono Suharjono, who transmigrated to Papua, Indonesia, in 1986, harvests oranges on his land in Arso II in Keerom regency last week. Image: Victor Mambor/BenarNews]

    Pramono Suharjono, a resident of Arso II in Keerom, Papua, welcomed the idea of restarting the programme, viewing it as positive for the region’s growth.

    “This supports national development, not colonisation,” he told BenarNews.

    A former transmigrant who has served as a local representative, Pramono said transmigration had increased local knowledge in agriculture, craftsmanship and trade.

    However, research has shown that longstanding social issues, including tensions from cultural differences, have marginalised indigenous Papuans and fostered resentment toward non-locals, said La Pona, a lecturer at Cenderawasih University.

    Papua also faces a humanitarian crisis because of conflicts between Indonesian forces and pro-independence groups. United Nations data shows between 60,000 and 100,000 Papuans were displaced between and 2022.

    As of September 2024, human rights advocates estimate 79,000 Papuans remain displaced even as Indonesia denies UN officials access to the region.

    Pizaro Gozali Idrus in Jakarta contributed to this report. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Andreas Harsono in Jakarta

    In December 2008, I visited the Abepura prison in Jayapura, West Papua, to verify a report sent to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture alleging abuses inside the jailhouse, as well as shortages of food and water.

    After prison guards checked my bag, I passed through a metal detector into the prison hall, joining the Sunday service with about 30 prisoners. A man sat near me. He had a thick beard and wore a small Morning Star flag on his chest.

    The flag, a symbol of independence for West Papua, is banned by the Indonesian authorities, so I was a little surprised to see it worn inside the prison.

    He politely introduced himself, “Filep Karma.”

    I immediately recognised him. Karma was arrested in 2004 after giving a speech on West Papua nationalism, and had been sentenced to 15 years in prison for “treason”.

    When I asked him about torture victims in the prison, he introduced me to some other prisoners, so I could verify the allegations.

    It was the beginning of my many interviews with Karma. And I began to understand what made him such a courageous leader.

    Born in 1959 in Jayapura, Karma was raised in an elite, educated family.

    Student-led protests
    In 1998, when Karma returned after studying from the Asian Institute of Management in Manila, he found Indonesia engulfed in student-led protests against the authoritarian rule of President Suharto.

    On 2 July 1998, he led a ceremony to peacefully raise the Morning Star flag on Biak Island. It prompted a deadly attack by the Indonesian military that the authorities said killed at least eight Papuans, but Papuans recovered 32 bodies. Karma was arrested and sentenced to 18 months in prison.

    Karma gradually emerged as a leader who campaigned peacefully but tirelessly on behalf of the rights of Indigenous Papuans. He also worked as a civil servant, training new government employees.

    He was invariably straightforward and precise. He provided detailed data, including names, dates, and actions about torture and other mistreatment at Abepura prison.

    Human Rights Watch published these investigations in June 2009. It had quite an impact, prompting media pressure that forced the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to investigate the allegations.

    In August 2009, Karma became seriously ill and was hospitalised at the Dok Dua hospital. The doctors examined him several times, and finally, in October, recommended that he be sent for surgery that could only be done in Jakarta.

    But bureaucracy, either deliberately or through incompetence, kept delaying his treatment. “I used to be a bureaucrat myself,” Karma said. “But I have never experienced such [use of] red tape on a sick man.”

    Papuan political prisoners Jefry Wandikbo (left) and Filep Karma (center) chatted with Andreas Harsono at the Abepura prison in Jayapura, Papua, in May 2015. They continued to campaign against arbitrary detention by the Indonesian authorities.
    Papuan political prisoners Jefry Wandikbo (left) and Filep Karma (center) chat with the author Andreas Harsono at Abepura prison in Jayapura, Papua, in May 2015. They continued to campaign against arbitrary detention by the Indonesian authorities. Image: Ruth Ogetay/HRW

    Health crowdfunding
    His health problems, however, drew public attention. Papuan activists started collecting money to pay for the airfare and surgery in Jakarta. I helped write a crowdfunding proposal. People deposited the donations directly into his bank account.

    I was surprised when I found out that the total donation, including from some churches, had almost reached IDR1 billion (US$700,000). It was enough to also pay for his mother, Eklefina Noriwari, an uncle, a cousin and an assistant to travel with him. They rented a guest house near the hospital.

    Some wondered why he travelled with such a large entourage. The answer is that Indigenous Papuans distrust the Indonesian government. Many of their political leaders had mysteriously died while receiving medical treatment in Jakarta. They wanted to ensure that Filep Karma was safe.

    When he was admitted to Cikini hospital, the ward had a small security cordon. I saw many Indonesian security people, including four prison guards, guarding his room, but also church delegates, visiting him.

    Papuan students, mostly waiting in the inner yard, said they wanted to make sure, “Our leader is okay.”

    After a two-hour surgery, Karma recovered quickly, inviting me and my wife to visit him. His mother and his two daughters, Audryn and Andrefina, also visited my Jakarta apartment. In July 2011, after 11 days in the hospital, he was considered fit enough to return to prison.

    In May 2011, the Washington-based Freedom Now filed a petition with the UN Working Group on arbitrary detention on Karma’s behalf. Six months later, the Working Group determined that his detention violated international standards, saying that Indonesia’s courts “disproportionately” used the laws against treason, and called for his immediate release.

    President refused to act
    But President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono refused to act, prompting criticism at the UN forum on the discrimination and abuses against Papuans.

    I often visited Karma in prison. He took a correspondence course at Universitas Terbuka, studying police science. He read voraciously.

    He studied Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King on non-violent movements and moral courage. He also drew, using pencil and charcoal. He surprised me with my portrait that he drew on a Jacob’s biscuit box.

    His name began to appear globally. Chinese artist Ai Weiwei drew political prisoners, including Karma, in an exhibition at Alcatraz prison near San Francisco. Amnesty International produced a video about Karma.

    Interestingly, he also read my 2011 book on journalism, “Agama” Saya Adalah Jurnalisme (My “Religion” Is Journalism), apparently inspiring him to write his own book. He used an audio recorder to express his thoughts, asking his friends to type and to print outside, which he then edited.

    His 137-page book was published in November 2014, entitled, Seakan Kitorang Setengah Binatang: Rasialisme Indonesia di Tanah Papua (As If We’re Half Animals: Indonesian Racism in West Papua). It became a very important book on racism against Indigenous Papuans in Indonesia.

    The Indonesian government, under new President Joko Widodo, finally released Karma in November 2015, and after that gradually released more than 110 political prisoners from West Papua and the Maluku Islands.

    Release from jail celebration
    Hundreds of Papuan activists welcomed Karma, bringing him from the prison to a field to celebrate with dancing and singing. He called me that night, saying that he had that “strange feeling” of missing the Abepura prison, his many inmate friends, his vegetable garden, as well as the boxing club, which he managed. He had spent 11 years inside the Abepura prison.

    “It’s nice to be back home though,” he said laughing.

    He slowly rebuilt his activism, traveling to many university campuses throughout Indonesia, also overseas, and talking about human rights abuses, the environmental destruction in West Papua, as well as his advocacy for an independent West Papua.

    Students often invited him to talk about his book.

    In Jakarta, he rented a studio near my apartment as his stopping point. We met socially, and also attended public meetings together. I organised his birthday party in August 2018. He bought new gear for his scuba diving. My wife, Sapariah, herself a diving enthusiast, noted that Karma was an excellent diver: “He swims like a fish.”

    Filep Karma (right) with his brother-in-law George Waromi at Base G beach, Jayapura, Papua, on October 30, 2022. Karma said he planned to go spearfishing alone. His body washed ashore two days later. © 2022 Larz Barnabas Waromi
    Filep Karma (right) with his brother-in-law George Waromi at Base G beach, Jayapura, Papua, on 30 October 2022. Karma said he planned to go spearfishing alone. His body washed ashore two days later. Image: Larz Barnabas Waromi/HRW

    The resistance of Papuans in Indonesia to discrimination took on a new phase following a 17 August 2019 attack by security forces on a Papuan student dormitory in Surabaya, Indonesia’s second largest city, in which the students were subjected to racial insults.

    The attack renewed discussions on anti-Papuan racial discrimination and sovereignty for West Papua. Papuan students and others acting through a social media movement called Papuan Lives Matter, inspired by Black Lives Matter in the United States, took part in a wave of protests that broke out in many parts of Indonesia.

    The new Human Rights Watch report "If It's Not Racism, What Is It?"
    The new Human Rights Watch report “If It’s Not Racism, What Is It?”: Discrimination and Other Abuses Against Papuans in Indonesia. Image: HRW screenshot APR

    Everyone reading Karma’s book
    Everyone was reading Filep Karma’s book. Karma protested when these young activists, many of whom he personally knew, such as Sayang Mandabayan, Surya Anta Ginting and Victor Yeimo, were arrested and charged with treason.

    “Protesting racism should not be considered treason,” he said.

    The Indonesian government responded by detaining hundreds. Papuans Behind Bars, a nongovernmental organisation that monitors politically motivated arrests in West Papua, recorded 418 new cases from October 2020 to September 2021. At least 245 of them were charged, found guilty, and imprisoned for joining the protests, with 109 convicted of “treason”.

    However, while in the past, Papuans charged with political offences typically were sentenced to years — in Karma’s case, 15 years — in the recent cases, perhaps because of international and domestic attention, the Indonesian courts handed down much shorter sentences, often time already served.

    The coronavirus pandemic halted his activism in 2020-2022. He had plenty of time for scuba diving and spearfishing. Once he posted on Facebook that when a shark tried to steal his fish, he smacked it on the snout.

    On 1 November 2022, my good friend Filep Karma was found dead on a Jayapura beach. He had apparently gone diving alone. He was wearing his scuba diving suit.

    His mother, Eklefina Noriwari, called me that morning, telling me that her son had died. “I know you’re his close friend,” she told me. “Please don’t be sad. He died doing what he liked best . . . the sea, the swimming, the diving.”

    West Papua was in shock. More than 30,000 people attended his funeral, flying the Morning Star flag, as their last act of respect for a courageous man. Mourners heard the speakers celebrating Filep Karma’s life, and then quietly went home.

    It was peaceful. And this is exactly what Filep Karma’s message is about.

    Andreas Harsono is the Indonesia researcher at Human Rights Watch and the author of its new report, “If It’s Not Racism, What Is It?”: Discrimination and Other Abuses Against Papuans in Indonesia. This article was first published by RNZ Pacific.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report

    An exiled West Papuan leader has praised Papua New Guinea Prime Minister James Marape for his “brave ambush” in questioning new Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto over West Papua.

    Prabowo offered an “amnesty” for West Papuan pro-independence activists during Marape’s revent meeting with Prabowo on the fringes of the inauguration, the PNG leader revealed.

    The offer was reported by Asia Pacific Report last week.

    Wenda, a London-based officer of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), said in a statement that he wanted to thank Marape on behalf of the people of West Papua for directly raising the issue of West Papua in his meeting with President Prabowo.

    “This was a brave move on behalf of his brothers and sisters in West Papua,” Wenda said.

    “The offer of amnesty for West Papuans by Prabowo is a direct result of him being ambushed by PM Marape on West Papua.

    “But what does amnesty mean? All West Papuans support Merdeka, independence; all West Papuans want to raise the [banned flag] Morning Star; all West Papuans want to be free from colonial rule.”

    Wenda said pro-independence actions of any kind were illegal in West Papua.

    ‘Beaten, arrested or jailed’
    “If we raise our flag or call for self-determination, we are beaten, arrested or jailed. If the offer of amnesty is real, it must involve releasing all West Papuan political prisoners.

    “It must involve allowing us to peacefully struggle for our freedom without the threat of imprisonment.” 

    Wenda said that in the history of the occupation, it was very rare for Melanesian leaders to openly confront the Indonesian President about West Papua.

    “Marape can become like Moses for West Papua, going to Pharoah and demanding ‘let my people go!’.

    “West Papua and Papua New Guinea are the same people, divided only by an arbitrary colonial line. One day the border between us will fall like the Berlin Wall and we will finally be able celebrate the full liberation of New Guinea together, from Sorong to Samarai.

    “By raising West Papua at Prabowo’s inauguration, Marape is inhabiting the spirit of Melanesian brotherhood and solidarity,” Wenda said.

    Vanuatu Prime Minister and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) chair Charlot Salwai and Solomon Islands Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele were also there as a Melanesian delegation.

    “To Prabowo, I say this: A true amnesty means giving West Papua our land back by withdrawing your military, and allowing the self-determination referendum we have been denied since the 1960s.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has “cleared the air” with the Fijian diaspora in Samoa over Fiji’s vote against the United Nations resolution on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People.

    He denied that Fiji — the only country to vote against the resolution — had “pressed the wrong button”.

    And he described last week’s vote as an “ambush resolution”, claiming it was not the one they had agreed on during the voting of the UN Special Committee of Decolonisation, reports The Fiji Times.

    However, a prominent Fiji civil society and human rights advocate condemned his statement and also Fiji’s UN voting.

    Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre (FWCC) coordinator Shamima Ali said she was “ashamed” of Fiji’s stance over genocide in Palestine, its vote against ceasefire and “not wanting decolonisation”.

    In Apia, Rabuka, who leaves for Kanaky New Caledonia on Sunday to take part in the Pacific Islands Forum’s “Troika Plus” talks on the French Pacific’s territory amid indigenous demands for independence, told The Fiji Times:

    “We will not tell them we pressed the wrong button. We will tell them that the resolution was an ambush resolution, it is not something that we have been talking about.”

    ‘Serious student of colonisation’
    The Prime Minister said he had been a “serious student of colonisation and decolonisation”.

    Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka
    Fiji Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka . . . “We will not tell them we pressed the wrong button.” Image: Fiji Times

    “They started with the C-12, but now it’s C-24 members of the [UN] committee that talks about decolonisation.

    “I was wondering if anyone would complain about my going [to Kanaky New Caledonia] next week because C-24 met last week and there was a vote on decolonisation.”

    According to an RNZ Pacific interview, Rabuka had told the Kanak independence movement:”Don’t slap the hand that has fed you.”

    Fiji was the only country that voted against the UN resolution while 99 voted for the resolution and 61 countries, including colonisers such as France, United Kingdom and the United States, abstained.

    Another coloniser, Indonesia (West Papua), voted for it.

    “I thought the [indigenous] people of the Kanaky of New Caledonia would object to my coming, so far we have not heard anything from them.

    “So, I am hoping that no one will bring that up, but if they do bring it up, we have a perfect answer.”

    Fiji human rights advocate Shamima Ali
    Fiji human rights advocate Shamima Ali . . . “We are ashamed of having a government that supports an occupation.” Image: FWCC/FB

    Human rights advocate Shamima Ali said in a statement on social media it was “unbelievable” that Prime Minister Rabuka claimed to be “a serious student of colonisation and decolonisation” while leading a government that had been “blatantly complicit in the genocide of innocent Palestinians”.

    “No amount of public statements and explanations will save this Coalition government from the mess it has created on the international stage, especially at the United Nations.

    “We are ashamed of having a government that supports an occupation, votes against a ceasefire and does not want decolonisation in the world.

    “Trust between the Fijian people and their government is being eroded, especially on matters of global significance that reflect on the entire nation.”

    According to the government, Fiji is one of two Pacific countries which are members of the Special Committee on Decolonisation or C-24 and have been a consistent voice in addressing the issue of decolonisation.

    Through the C-24 and the Fourth Committee, Fiji aligns with the positions undertaken by the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), in its support for the annual resolution on decolonisation entitled “Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples”.

    Government reiterated its support of the regional position of the Forum, and the MSG on decolonisation and self-determination, as enshrined in the UN Charter.

    The Fiji Permanent Mission in New York, led by Filipo Tarakinikini, is working with the Forum Secretariat to clarify the matter within its process.

    Rabuka is currently in Samoa for the 2024 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), which is being held in the Pacific for the first time.

    The UN decolonisation vote . . . Fiji voted against
    The UN decolonisation declaration vote on 17 October 2024 . . . Fiji was the only country that voted against it. Image: UN

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Indonesian state-owned company PT Pindad – a key member of the DefendID defence industry consortium – has partnered with Türkiye military vehicles specialist FNSS to collaborate on the development and production of a new tracked armoured personnel carrier (APC) for the Indonesian Army (TNI-AD). The proposed new 30 tonne vehicle is named the Kaplan APC […]

    The post Indonesian-Turkish collaboration pursues next-generation APC development appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • ANALYSIS: By Ali Mirin

    In the lead up to the inauguration of President Prabowo Subianto last Sunday, Indonesia established five “Vulnerable Area Buffer Infantry Battalions” in key regions across West Papua — a move described by Indonesian Army Chief-of-Staff Maruli Simanjuntak as a “strategic initiative” by the new leader.

    The battalions are based in the Keerom, Sarmi, Boven Digoel, Merauke and Sorong regencies, and their aim is to “enhance security” in Papua, and also to strengthen Indonesia’s military presence in response to long-standing unrest and conflict, partly related to independence movements and local resistance.

    According to Armed Forces chief General Agus Subiyanto, “the main goal of the new battalions is to assist the government in accelerating development and improving the prosperity of the Papuan people”.

    However, this raises concerns about further militarisation and repression of a region already plagued by long-running violence and human rights abuses in the context of the movement for a free and independent West Papua.

    Thousands of Indonesian soldiers have been stationed in areas impacted by violence, including Star Mountain, Nduga, Yahukimo, Maybrat, Intan Jaya, Puncak and Puncak Jaya.

    As a result, the situation in West Papua is becoming increasingly difficult for indigenous people.

    Extrajudicial killings in Papua go unreported or are only vaguely known about internationally. Those who are aware of these either disregard them or accept them as an “unavoidable consequence” of civil unrest in what Indonesia refers to as its most eastern provinces — the “troubled regions”.

    Why do the United Nations, Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the international community stay silent?

    While the Indonesian government frames this move as a strategy to enhance security and promote development, it risks exacerbating long-standing tensions in a region with deep-seated conflicts over autonomy and independence and the impacts of extractive industries and agribusiness on West Papuan people and their environment.

    Exploitative land theft
    The Centre for Climate Crime and Climate Justice, in collaboration with various international and Indonesian human and environmental rights organisations, presented testimony at the public hearings of the Permanent Peoples’ Tribunal (PPT) at Queen Mary University of London, in June.

    The tribunal heard testimonies relating to a range of violations by Indonesia. A key issue, highlighted was the theft of indigenous Papuan land by the Indonesian government and foreign corporations in connection to extractive industries such as mining, logging and palm oil plantations.

    The appropriation of traditional lands without the consent of the Papuan people violates their right to land and self-determination, leading to environmental degradation, loss of livelihood, and displacement of Indigenous communities.

    The tribunal’s judgment underscores how the influx of non-Papuan settlers and the Indonesian government’s policies have led to the marginalisation of Papuan culture and identity. The demographic shift due to transmigration programmes has significantly reduced the proportion of Indigenous Papuans in their own land.

    Moreover, a rise in militarisation in West Papua has often led to heightened repression, with potential human rights violations, forced displacement and further marginalisation of the indigenous communities.

    The decision to station additional military forces in West Papua, especially in conflict-prone areas like Nduga, Yahukimo and Intan Jaya, reflects a continuation of Indonesia’s militarised approach to governance in the region.

    Indonesian security forces . . . “the main goal of the new battalions is to assist the government in accelerating development and improving the prosperity of the Papuan people.”
    Indonesian security forces . . . “the main goal of the new battalions is to assist the government in accelerating development and improving the prosperity of the Papuan people,” says Armed Forces chief General Agus Subiyanto. Image: Antara

    Security pact
    The Indonesia-Papua New Guinea Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA) was signed by the two countries in 2010 but only came into effect this year after the PNG Parliament ratified it in late February.

    Indonesia ratified the pact in 2012.

    As reported by Asia Pacific Report, PNG’s Foreign Minister Justin Tkatchenko and Indonesia’s ambassador to PNG, Andriana Supandy, said the DCA enabled an enhancement of military operations between the two countries, with a specific focus on strengthening patrols along the PNG-West Papua border.

    This will have a significant impact on civilian communities in the areas of conflict and along the border. Indigenous people in particular, are facing the threat of military takeovers of their lands and traditional border lines.

    Under the DCA, the joint militaries plan to employ technology, including military drones, to monitor and manage local residents’ every move along the border.

    Human rights
    Prabowo, Defence Minister prior to being elected President, has a controversial track record on human rights — especially in the 1990s, during Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor.

    His involvement in military operations in West Papua adds to fears that the new battalions may be used for oppressive measures, including crackdowns on dissent and pro-independence movements.

    As indigenous communities continue to be marginalised, their calls for self-determination and independence may grow louder, risking further conflict in the region.

    Without substantial changes in the Indonesian government’s approach to West Papua, including addressing human rights abuses and engaging in meaningful dialogue with indigenous leaders, the future of West Papuans remains uncertain and fraught with challenges.

    With ongoing military operations often accused of targeting indigenous populations, the likelihood of further human rights violations, such as extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and forced displacement, remains high.

    Displacement
    Military operations in West Papua frequently result in the displacement of indigenous Papuans, as they flee conflict zones.

    The presence of more battalions could drive more communities from their homes, deepening the humanitarian crisis in the region. Indigenous peoples, who rely on their land for survival, face disruption of their traditional livelihoods and rising poverty.

    The Indonesian government launched the Damai Cartenz military operation on April 5, 2018, and it is still in place in the conflict zones of Yahukimo, Pegunungan Bintang, Nduga and Intan Jaya.

    Since then, according to a September 24 Human Rights Monitor update, more than 79,867 West Papuans remain internally displaced.

    The displacement, killings, shootings, abuses, tortures and deaths are merely the tip of the iceberg of what truly occurs within the tightly-controlled military operational zones across West Papua, according to Benny Wenda, a UK-based leader of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP).

    The international community, particularly the United Nations and the Pacific Islands Forum have been criticised for remaining largely silent on the matter. Responding to the August 31 PIF communique reaffirming its 2019 call for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights visit to West Papua, Wenda said:

    “[N]ow is the time for Indonesia to finally let the world see what is happening in our land. They cannot hide their dirty secret any longer.”

    Increased global attention and intervention is crucial in addressing the humanitarian crisis, preventing further escalations and supporting the rights and well-being of the West Papuans.

    Without meaningful dialogue, the long-term consequences for the indigenous population may be severe, risking further violence and unrest in the region.

    As Prabowo was sworn in, Wenda restated the ULMWP’s demand for an internationally-mediated referendum on independence, saying: “The continued violation of our self-determination is the root cause of the West Papua conflict.”

    Ali Mirin is a West Papuan academic from the Kimyal tribe of the highlands bordering the Star Mountain region of Papua New Guinea. He is a contributor to Asia Pacific Report and Green Left in Australia.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The National, PNG

    Indonesia will offer amnesty to West Papuans who have contested Jakarta’s sovereignty over the Melanesian region resulting in conflicts and clashes with law enforcement agencies, says Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister James Marape.

    He arrived in Port Moresby on Monday night from Indonesia where he attended the inauguration of President Prabowo Subianto last Sunday.

    During his bilateral discussions with the Indonesian President, Marape said Prabowo was “quite frank and open” about the West Papua independence issue.

    “This is the first time for me to see openness on West Papua and while it is an Indonesian sovereignty matter, my advice was to give respect to land and their [West Papuans] cultural heritage.

    “I commend the offer on amnesty and Papua New Guinea will continue to respect Indonesia’s sovereignty,” Marape said.

    “The President also offered a pledge for higher autonomy and a commitment to keep on working on the need for more economic activities and development that the former president [Joko Widodo] has started for West Papua.”

    While emphasising that Papua New Guinea had no right to debate Indonesia’s internal sovereignty issues, Marape welcomed that country’s recognition of the West Papuan people, their culture and heritage.

    Expanding trade, investment
    Marape also reaffirmed his intention to work with Prabowo in expanding trade and investment, especially in business-to-business and people-to-people relations with Indonesia.

    The exponential growth of Indonesia’s economy currently sits at nearly US$1.5 trillion (about K5 trillion), with the country aggressively pushing toward First World nation status by 2045.

    Papua New Guinea was among nations allocated time for a bilateral meeting with President Subianto after the inauguration.

    Republished from The National with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Victor Mambor in Jayapura

    With Prabowo Subianto, a controversial former general installed as Indonesia’s new president, residents in the disputed Papua region were responding to this reality with anxiety and, for some, cautious optimism.

    The remote and resource-rich region has long been a flashpoint for conflict, with its people enduring decades of alleged military abuse and human rights violations under Indonesian rule and many demanding independence.

    With Prabowo now in charge, many Papuans fear that their future will be marked by further violence and repression.

    In Papua — a region known as “West Papua” in the Pacific — views on Prabowo, whose military record is both celebrated by nationalists and condemned by human rights activists, range from apathy to outright alarm.

    Many Papuans remain haunted by past abuses, particularly those associated with Indonesia’s counterinsurgency campaigns that began after Papua was incorporated into Indonesia in 1969 through a disputed UN-backed referendum.

    For people like Maurids Yansip, a private sector employee in Sentani, Prabowo’s rise to the presidency is a cause for serious concern.

    “I am worried,” Yansip said. “Prabowo talked about using a military approach to address Papua’s issues during the presidential debates.

    ‘Military worsened hunman rights’
    “We’ve seen how the military presence has worsened the human rights situation in this region. That’s not going to solve anything — it will only lead to more violations.”

    In Jayapura, the region’s capital, Musa Heselo, a mechanic at a local garage, expressed indifference toward the political changes unfolding in Jakarta.

    “I didn’t vote in the last election—whether for the president or the legislature,” Heselo said.

    “Whoever becomes president is not important to me, as long as Papua remains safe so we can make a living. I don’t know much about Prabowo’s background.”

    But such nonchalance is rare in a region where memories of military crackdowns run deep.

    Prabowo, a former son-in-law of Indonesia’s late dictator Suharto, has long been a polarising figure. His career, marked by accusations of human rights abuses, particularly during Indonesia’s occupation of Timor-Leste, continues to evoke strong reactions.

    In 1996, during his tenure with the elite Indonesian Army special forces unit, Kopassus, Prabowo commanded a high-stakes rescue of 11 hostages from a scientific research team held by Free Papua Movement (OPM) fighters.

    Deadly operation
    The operation was deadly, resulting in the deaths of two hostages and eight pro-independence fighters.

    Markus Haluk, executive secretary of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), described Prabowo’s presidency as a grim continuation of what he calls a “slow-motion genocide” of the Papuan people.

    “Prabowo’s leadership will extend Indonesia’s occupation of Papua,” Haluk said, his tone resolute.

    “The genocide, ethnocide, and ecocide will continue. We remember our painful history — this won’t be forgotten. We could see military operations return. This will make things worse.”

    Although he has never been convicted and denies any involvement in abuses in East Timor or Papua, these allegations continue to cast a shadow over his political rise.

    He ran for president in 2014 and again in 2019, both times unsuccessfully. His most recent victory, which finally propels him to Indonesia’s highest office, has raised questions about the future of Papua.

    President Prabowo Subianto greets people as he rides in a car after his inauguration in Jakarta, Indonesia, on 20 October 2024.
    President Prabowo Subianto greets people as he rides in a car after his inauguration in Jakarta, Indonesia, last Sunday. Image: Asprilla Dwi Adha/Antara Foto

    Despite these concerns, some see Prabowo’s presidency as a potential turning point — albeit a fraught one. Elvira Rumkabu, a lecturer at Cendrawasih University in Jayapura, is among those who view his military background as a possible double-edged sword.

    Prabowo’s military experience ‘may help’
    “Prabowo’s military experience and strategic thinking could help control the military in Papua and perhaps even manage the ultranationalist forces in Jakarta that oppose peace,” Rumkabu told BenarNews.

    “But I also worry that he might delegate important issues, like the peace agenda in Papua, to his vice-president.”

    Under outgoing President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, Papua’s development was often portrayed as a priority, but the reality on the ground told a different story. While Jokowi made high-profile visits to the region, his administration’s reliance on military operations to suppress pro-independence movements continued.

    “This was a pattern we saw under Jokowi, where Papua’s problems were relegated to lower levels, diminishing their urgency,” Rumkabu said.

    In recent years, clashes between Indonesian security forces and the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) have escalated, with civilians frequently caught in the crossfire.

    Yohanes Mambrasar, a human rights activist based in Sorong, expressed grave concerns about the future under Prabowo.

    “Prabowo’s stance on strengthening the military in Papua was clear during his campaign,” Mambrasar said.

    Called for ‘more troops, weapons’
    “He called for more troops and more weapons. This signals a continuation of militarized policies, and with it, the risk of more land grabs and violence against indigenous Papuans.”

    Earlier this month, Indonesian military chief Gen. Agus Subiyanto inaugurated five new infantry battalions in Papua, stating that their mandate was to support both security operations and regional development initiatives.

    Indeed, the memory of past military abuses looms large for many in Papua, where calls for independence have never abated.

    During a presidential debate, Prabowo vowed to strengthen security forces in Papua.

    “If elected, my priority will be to uphold the rule of law and reinforce our security presence,” he said, framing his approach as essential to safeguarding the local population.

    Yet, amid the fears, some see opportunities for positive change.

    Yohanes Kedang from the Archdiocese of Merauke said that improving the socio-economic conditions of indigenous Papuans must be a priority for Prabowo.

    Education, health care ‘left behind’
    “Education, healthcare, and the economy — these are areas where Papuans are still far behind,” he said.

    “This will be Prabowo’s real challenge. He needs to create policies that bring real improvements to the lives of indigenous Papuans, especially in the southern regions like Merauke, which has immense potential.”

    Theo Hesegem, executive director of the Papua Justice and Human Integrity Foundation, believes that dialogue is key to resolving the region’s long-standing issues.

    “Prabowo has the power to address the human rights violations in Papua,” Hesegem said.

    “But he needs to listen. He should come to Papua and sit down with the people here — not just with officials, but with civil society, with the people on the ground,” he added.

    “Jokowi failed to do that. If Prabowo wants to lead, he must listen to their voices.”

    Pizaro Gozali Idrus in Jakarta contributed to the report. Copyright © 2015-2024, BenarNews. Republished with the permission of BenarNews.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • China’s defence exports have been growing, but quality and political goals conflict potential customers. China’s defence industry has seen significant growth and development over the past few decades. It has rapidly transformed from being heavily reliant on foreign technology and imports to becoming a major player in the global arms market and a central pillar […]

    The post Chinese Political Ambition Restrains Defence Exports appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • One of the legacies Joko Widodo leaves Indonesia is a dramatically changed relationship between government and civil society. For the first decade and a half of the post-Suharto period, pro-democracy civil society groups and government constituted a rough-and-ready “Reformasi coalition” in which a constant push-and-pull between these two sides—sometimes cooperative, often conflictual—slowly moved forward a process of democratic reform and safeguarded reform achievements from counter-reformist elites.

    Jokowi’s presidency has seen the breakdown of that relationship. Civil society organisations (CSOs) have lost contact with interlocutors within government, and have few policy achievements to point to (and many losses) in the past decade. Mass protests haven’t ended, and there has been no wide-ranging crackdown on civil society per se. But as Jokowi prepares to hand over power to a successor who is viewed with great wariness by pro-democratic civil society, the progressive components of the erstwhile Reformasi coalition are more politically marginal than at any time since the regime change of 1998.

    How and why did a president whose early political career benefited much from the support of civil society oversee a precipitous decline in its political influence and role in policymaking?

    This question framed our exploration of the state of civil society, protest and social movements contained in a paper we presented at the ANU Indonesia Update in September, and which will appear in a forthcoming edited volume featuring papers from the conference. Beyond detailing the chilling effects of repression and harassment on Indonesians’ ability to engage in contentious politics, we explore the deeper causes of the Widodo government’s neglect and intimidation of civil society, which we believe are rooted in both Jokowi’s leadership style and in broader changes to the makeup of Indonesia’s political elite and the economic bases of CSO activity.

    A critical factor in undermining civil society’s influence has been the changing character of political leadership that Jokowi brought to the presidential palace in 2014. Former president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s experiences as a leading political figure during the fall of the New Order had led him to internalise a wariness of the potential impact of contentious politics, and as president he often pre-empted demands for reform by civil society-led protest movements.

    Jokowi, by contrast, was a political nobody in 1998, busy running his business in Central Java, and had little reason to either respect or fear mass mobilisation. He instead had a populist political outlook in which opinion polls were the principal indicator of which (and whose) views mattered. Polls generally vindicated his single-minded focus on the economic issues that affected ordinary voters: as one senior member of his government told us in an interview, he was “not at all worried about middle-class critics”. Safe in the knowledge that he continued to enjoy broad support among the mass of the population, Jokowi felt he could ignore civil society’s opposition to his government’s erosion of the key reforms won by the old Reformasi coalition.

    This populist leadership style arrived in the presidential palace amid broader structural changes in how power was contested and wielded in Indonesia. The entrenchment of grassroots money politics has meant that the political elite is increasingly made up of wealthy individuals who see their political futures being more closely linked to the (often illegal) accumulation of patronage resources than to the delivery of policy outputs. Most elected officials have few incentives to cooperate with civil society actors on policy—especially when it comes to matters of good governance and transparency.

    Reversing reformasi

    The narrowing field of political contestation in Indonesia is not just being driven by presidential machinations and ruling-coalition infighting—but also the inescapable contradictions of Indonesia’s middle income status

    Long-term structural changes within civil society itself have also played their part. Indonesia’s broad pro-democracy movement had in the past been scaffolded by a network of NGOs who drew upon support from foreign donors. Over the last decade or so, partly preceding but also coinciding with the Jokowi period, this support declined significantly, as Indonesia’s economic improvement saw it deprioritised in Western aid programs, and as donors, many of whom embraced the “success story” narrative of Indonesian democratisation, moved away from funding watchdog and democratic governance programs and towards offering technical support guided by the Indonesian government’s own policy priorities—and, lately, its sensitivity to foreign support for advocacy on “sensitive” issues.

    Under Jokowi, the management of foreign funding flows to Indonesian NGOs has arguably become even more restrictive than that practiced during the New Order period. Under the provisions of the 2013 Mass Organisations Law, many local NGO grantees of foreign donors present their planned activities to a Monitoring Team for Foreign Organisations (Tim Pengawasan Organisasi Asing, or TPOA) that includes representatives of relevant ministries and intelligence agencies. The latter, according to several people who have participated in TPOA meetings, typically single out organisations and individuals they accuse of being too “critical” of the government, and we understand that the government has vetoed funding for at least several organisations.

    Unable to draw upon a large domestic donor base, and bound by strict rules on how domestic private donations can be used, many NGOs have increasingly turned to government funding sources, especially in the regions. As a result they often end up “just working to carry out government programs”, resembling “tukang” (craftspeople, technicians) for the government, as one Jakarta-based NGO told us. The often polarised ideological climate of the Widodo years aided this trend of increasing civil society alignment with the state, with some elements of national civil society essentially being coopted into the Jokowi administration’s political agenda as they came to see Islamism as a more urgent threat to Indonesia than corruption or state repression.

    The obsolescence of the Reformasi coalition doesn’t bode well for the ability of civil society to fight further democratic backsliding under Prabowo. But despite the deep concerns expressed by many of the activists we interviewed, they were trying to remain optimistic. The mass protests of 2019–2020 and 2024 against the Widodo government demonstrate that an oppositional culture continues to infuse pockets, if not broad swathes, of Indonesian society. Many civil society actors carry with them a view of Prabowo as an historic enemy of their movement, and of human rights in general—and with that, a feeling that resistance will be a duty.

    Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to New Mandala

    Keep up to date with opinionated, informed and accessible commentary on Southeast Asia from leading researchers. Leave your email address in the field below and you’ll receive new posts in your inbox as they are published.

    The post Jokowi broke the ‘Reformasi coalition’ appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • Coastguard forces are in constant demand to help defend against illegal Chinese EEZ exploitation and other maritime criminal activity. Larger surface combatants offer naval forces high-end capabilities and an ocean-going international presence. However, it is the smaller vessels patrolling the economic exclusive zones (EEZ), coastal and littoral areas and the rivers of countries in Southeast […]

    The post Maritime Patrol Forces – The Unsung Heroes of National Security appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Pacific Media Watch

    ABC’s The Pacific has gained rare access into West Papua, a region ruled by Indonesia that has been plagued by military violence and political unrest for decades.

    Now, as well as the long-running struggle for independence, some say the Melanesian region’s pristine environment is under threat by the expansion of logging and mining projects, reports The Pacific.

    As Indonesia prepares to inaugurate a new President, Prabowo Subianto, a man accused of human rights abuses in the region, West Papua grapples with a humanitarian crisis.

    The Pacific talks to indigenous Papuans in a refugee settlement about being displaced, teachers who want change to the education system and locals who have hope for a better future.

    A spokesman for the Indonesian Foreign Ministry told The Pacific that Indonesia was cooperating with all relevant United Nations agencies and was providing them with up to date information about what is happening in West Papua.

    This Inside Indonesia’s Secret War story was produced with the help of ABC Indonesia’s Hellena Souisa.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Indonesian Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced on 2 October that the armed forces have received 569 domestically produced military vehicles, including tracked and wheeled armoured combat vehicles, during a ceremony in Jakarta. The latest batch of new military vehicles were supplied by the state-owned PT Pindad – a key subsidiary of the Defend ID […]

    The post Indonesia receives over 500 new combat and support vehicles appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • By Caleb Fotheringham, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Racism, torture and arbitrary arrests are some examples of discrimination indigenous Papuans have dealt with over the last 60 years from Indonesia, according to a new report by Human Rights Watch.

    The report, If It’s Not Racism, What Is It? Discrimination and other abuses against Papuans in Indonesia, said the Indonesian government denies Papuans basic rights, like education and adequate health care.

    Human Rights Watch researcher Andreas Harsono said Papuan people had been beaten, kidnapped and sexually abused for more than six decades.

    “I have heard about this day to day racism since I had my first Papuan friend when I was in my 20s in my college, it means that over the last 40 years, that kind of story keeps on going on today,” Harsono said.

    “Regarding torture again this is not something new.”

    The report said infant mortality rates in West Papua in some instances are close to 12 times higher than in Jakarta.

    Papuan children denied education
    Papuan children are denied adequate education because the government has failed to recruit teachers, in some instance’s soldiers have stepped into the positions “and mostly teach children about Indonesian nationalism”.

    It said Papuan students find it difficult to find accommodation with landlords unwilling to rent to them while others were ostracised because of their racial identity.

    In March, a video emerged of soldiers torturing Definus Kogoya in custody. He along with Alianus Murib and Warinus Kogoya were arrested in February for allegedly trying to burn down a medical clinic in Gome, Highland Papua province.

    According to the Indonesian army, Warinus Kogoya died after allegedly “jumping off” a military vehicle.

    President-elect Prabowo Subianto’s takes government next month.

    Harsono said the report was launched yesterday because of this.

    “We want this new [Indonesian] government to understand the problem and to think about new policies, new approaches, including to answer historical injustice, social injustice, economic injustice.”

    Subianto’s poor human rights record
    Harsono said Subianto has a poor human rights record but he hopes people close to him will flag the report.

    He said current President Joko Widodo had made promises while he was in power to allow foreign journalists into West Papua and release political prisoners, but this did not materialise.

    When he came to power the number of political prisoners was around 100 and now it’s about 200, Harsono said.

    He said few people inside Indonesia were aware of the discrimination West Papuan people face, with most only knowing West Papua only for its natural beauty.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Pro-independence fighters in the Indonesian-ruled West Papua region have proposed the terms of release for the New Zealand pilot taken hostage almost 18 months ago.

    The armed faction of the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) kidnapped Phillip Merhtens, a 38-year-old pilot working for the Indonesian internal feeder airline Susi Air, in February last year after he landed a small commercial plane in a remote, mountainous area.

    The group has tried to use Mehrtens to broker independence from Indonesia.

    It is now asking the New Zealand government, including the police and army, to escort the pilot and for local and international journalists to be involved in the release process.

    Both Foreign Affairs and the minister’s office say they are aware of the proposed plan.

    In a statement, they say their focus remains on securing a peaceful resolution and the pilot’s safe release.

    “We continue to work closely with all parties to achieve this and will not be discussing the details publicly.”

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

    The Guardian reports that Indonesian human rights advocate Andreas Harsono, who covers the country for Human Rights Watch, said the proposal was “realistic”, despite Indonesia’s ongoing restriction on reporters and human rights monitors in the region.

    “The top priority should be to release this man who has a wife and kids,” The Guardian quoted Harsono as saying.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • The Indonesian Air Force has placed an order for four Airbus H145 helicopters as part of its training modernisation programme. The order was announced during the Bali International Airshow taking place this week. Under the agreement between the Indonesian Air Force and PT Dirgantara Indonesia (PTDI), Airbus will deliver the five-bladed H145s to PTDI, who […]

    The post Indonesian Air Force orders four Airbus H145 helicopters appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • COMMENTARY: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta

    The Land of Papua is widely known as a land full of milk and honey. It is a name widely known in Indonesia that refers to the western half of the island of New Guinea.

    Its natural wealth and beauty are special treasures entrusted by the Creator to the Papuan people who are of Melanesian ethnicity.

    The beauty of the land inhabited by the blackish and brownish-skinned people is often sung about by Papuans in “Tanah Papua”, a song created by the late Yance Rumbino. The lyrics, besides being musical art, also contain expressions of gratitude and prayer for the masterpiece of the Creator.

    For Papuans, “Tanah Papua” — composed by a former teacher in the central highlands of Papua — is always sung at various important events with a Papuan nuance, both in the Land of Papua and other parts of the world in Papuan gatherings.

    The rich, beautiful and mysterious Land of Papua as expressed in the lyrics of the song has not been placed in the right position by the hands of those in power.

    So for Papuans, when singing “Tanah Papua”, on one hand they admire and are grateful for all of God’s works in their ancestral land. On the other hand, by singing that song, they remind themselves to stay strong in facing daily challenges.

    The characteristics of the Land of Papua geographically and ethnographically are the same as the eastern part of the island of New Guinea, now the independent state of Papua New Guinea.

    Attractive to Europe
    The beauty and wealth of natural resources and the richness of cultural heritage initially become attractions to European nations.

    Therefore, the richness attracted the Europeans who later became the colonisers and invaders of the island.

    The Dutch invaded the western part of the island and the British Empire and Germany the eastern part of the island.

    The Europeans were present on the island of New Guinea with a “3Gs mission” (gospel, gold, glory). The gospel mission is related to the spread of Christianity. The gold mission is related to power over natural resource wealth. The glory mission is related to reigning over politics and territory on indigenous land outside of Europe.

    The western part of the island, during the Dutch administration, was known as Dutch New Guinea or Netherlands New Guinea. Later when Indonesia took over the territory, was then named West Irian, and now it is called Papua or internationally known as West Papua.

    The Land of Papua is divided into six provinces and it is home to 250 indigenous Melanesian tribes.

    Meanwhile, the eastern part of the island which currently stands on its independent state New Guinea is home to more than 800 indigenous Melanesian tribes. Given the anthropological and ethnographic facts, the Land of Papua and PNG collectively are the most diverse and richest island in the world.

    Vital role of language
    In the process of forming an embryo and giving birth to a new nation and country, language plays an important role in uniting the various existing indigenous tribes and languages.

    In Papua, after the Dutch left its territory and Indonesia took over control over the island, Bahasa Indonesia — modified Malay — was introduced. As a result, Indonesian became the unifying language for all Papuans, all the way from the Sorong to the Merauke region.

    Besides Bahasa Indonesia, Papuans are still using their ancestral languages.

    Meanwhile, in PNG, Tok Pisin, English and Hiri Motu are three widely spoken languages besides indigenous Melanesian languages. After the British Empire and Germany left the eastern New Guinea territory,

    PNG, then an Australian administered former British protectorate and League of Nations mandate, gained its independence in 1975 — yesterday was celebrated as its 49th anniversary.

    The relationship between the Land of Papua and its Melanesian sibling PNG is going well.

    However, the governments of Indonesia and Papua New Guinea with the spirit of sharing the same land and ocean, culture and values, and the same blood and ancestors, should take tangible steps.

    Melanesian policies
    As an example, the foreign policy of each country needs to be translated into deep-rooted policies and regulations that fulfill the inner desire of the Melanesian people from both sides of the divide.

    And then it needs to be extended to other Melanesian countries in the spirit of “we all are wantok” (one speak). The Melanesian countries and territories include the Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front (FLNKS).

    Together, they are members of the sub-regional Oceania political organisation Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG).

    In that forum, Indonesia is an associate member, while the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and Timor-Leste are observers. The ULMWP is the umbrella organisation for the Papuans who are dissatisfied with at least four root causes as concluded by Papua Road Map (2010), the distortion of the historical facts, racial injustice and discrimination, human rights violations, and marginalisation that Papuans have been experiencing for years.

    Fiji:
    Here is a brief overview of the diplomatic relationship between the Indonesian government and Melanesian countries. First, Indonesia-Fiji bilateral affairs. The two countries cooperate in several areas including defence, police, development, trade, tourism sector, and social issues including education, broadcasting and people-to-people to contact.

    PNG:
    Second, Indonesia-PNG bilateral affairs. The two countries cooperate in several areas including trade cooperation, investment, tourism, people-to-people contact and connectivity, energy and minerals, plantations and fisheries.

    Quite surprisingly there is no cooperation agreement covering the police and defence sectors.

    Solomon Islands:
    Third, Indonesia-Solomon Islands diplomacy. The two countries cooperate in several areas including trade, investment, telecommunications, mining and tourism.

    Interestingly, the country that is widely known in the Pacific as a producer of “Pacific Beat” musicians receives a significant amount of assistance from the Indonesian government.

    Indonesia and the Solomon Islands do not have security and defence cooperation.

    Vanuatu:
    Fourth, Indonesia-Vanuatu cooperation. Although Vanuatu is known as a country that is consistent and steadfast in supporting “Free Papua”, it turns out that the two countries have had diplomatic relations since 1995.

    They have cooperation in three sectors: trade, investment and tourism. Additionally, the MSG is based in Port Vila, the Vanuatu capital.

    FLNKS — New Caledonia:
    Meanwhile, New Caledonia, the territory that is vulnerable to political turmoil in seeking independence from France, is still a French overseas territory in the Pacific. Cooperation between the Indonesian and New Caledonia governments covers the same sectors as other MSG members.

    However, one sector that gives a different aspect to Indonesia-New Caledonia affairs is cooperation in language, society and culture.

    Indonesia’s relationship with MSG member countries cannot be limited to political debate or struggle only. Even though Indonesia has not been politically accepted as a full member of the MSG forum, in other forums in the region Indonesia has space to establish bilateral relations with Pacific countries.

    For example, in June 2014, then President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was invited to be one of the keynote speakers at the Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF) summit in Nadi, Fiji.

    PIDF is home to 12 member countries (Fiji, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Nauru, Marshall Islands, Palau, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu). Its mission is to implement green economic policies in the Pacific.

    Multilateral forums
    Indonesia has also joined various multilateral forums with other Pacific countries. The Archipelagic and Island States (AIS) is one example — Pacific states through mutual benefits programs.

    During the outgoing President Joko Widodo’s administration, Indonesia initiated several cooperation projects with Pacific states, such as hosting the Pacific Exposition in Auckland, New Zealand, in 2019, and initiating the Indonesia-Pacific Development Forum.

    Will Indonesia be granted a full membership status at the MSG? Or will ULMWP be granted an associate or full membership status at the MSG? Only time will reveal.

    Both the Indonesian government and the United Liberation Movement for West Papua see a home at the MSG.

    As former RNZ Pacific journalist Johnny Blades wrote in 2020, “West Papua is the issue that won’t go away for Melanesia”.

    At this stage, the leaders of MSG countries are faced with moral and political dilemmas. The world is watching what next step will be taken by the MSG over the region’s polarising issue.

    Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta, and is a member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Patrick Decloitre, RNZ Pacific correspondent French Pacific desk

    A South African company is reported to be the most probable bidder for shares in New Caledonia’s Prony Resources.

    As part of an already advanced takeover of the ailing southern plant of Prony Resources, the most probable bidder is reported to be South African group Sibaneye-Stillwater, local new media report.

    Just like the other two major mining plants and smelters in New Caledonia, Prony Resources is facing acute hardships due to the emergence of Indonesia as a major player on the world market, compounded with New Caledonia’s violent unrest that broke out in May.

    Prony Resources has been trying to find a possible company to take over the shares held by Swiss trader Trafigura (19 percent).

    The process was recently described as very favourable to a “seriously interested” buyer.

    Citing reliable sources, daily newspaper Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes yesterday named South Africa’s Sibanye-Stillwater.

    The Johannesburg-based entity is a significant player on the minerals world market (including nickel, platinum and palladium) and owns, amongst other assets, a hydro-metallurgic processing plant in Sandouville (near Le Havre, western France) with a production capacity of 12,000 tonnes per year of high-grade nickel which it bought in February 2022 from French mining giant Eramet for 85 million euros (NZ$153 million).

    The ultimate goal would be, for the South African player, to become a leader on the production market for innovative electric vehicles batteries, especially on the European market.

    Southern Province President Sonia Backès had already hinted last week that one buyer had now been found and that one bidder had successfully reached advanced stages in the due diligence process.

    If the deal eventuated, the new entity would take over the shares held by Swiss trader Trafigura (19 percent) and another block of shares held by the Southern Province to reach a total of 74 percent participation in Prony Resources stock, as part of a major restructuration of the company’s capital.

    Prony Resources, in full operation mode, employs about 1300 staff.

    Another 1700 are employed indirectly through sub-contractors.

    It has paused its production to retain only up to 300 staff, in safety and maintenance mode, partly due to New Caledonia’s current unrest.

    New Caledonia's Koniambo -KNS- mining site aerial view PICTURE KNS
    New Caledonia’s Koniambo (KNS) mining site aerial view. Image: KNS

    New Caledonian consortium’s surprise bid for mothballed Northern plant
    Meanwhile, a local consortium of New Caledonian investors is reported to have made an 11-hour offer to take over and restart activity for the now mothballed Koniambo (KNS) nickel plant.

    The plant’s furnaces were placed in “cold care and maintenance” mode at the end of August, six months after major shareholder Anglo-Swiss Glencore announced it wanted to withdraw and sell the 49 percent shares it has in the project.

    This caused close to 1200 job losses and further 600 among sub-contractors.

    Other bidders still interested
    KNS claimed at least three foreign investors were still interested at this stage, but none of these have so far materialised.

    Talks were however reported to continue behind the scenes, with interested parties even ready to travel and visit on-site, KNS Vice-President and spokesman Alexandre Rousseau told Reuters news agency earlier this month.

    ‘Okelani Group One’
    But a so-called “Okelani Group One” (OGO), made up of three local partners, said their offer could revive the project with a different business model.

    They say they have made an offer to KNS’s majority shareholder SMSP (Société Minière du Sud Pacifique, New Caledonia’s Northern province financial arm).

    OGO president Florent Tavernier told public broadcaster NC la 1ère much depended on what Glencore intended to do with the staggering debt of some US$13.7 billion which KNS had accumulated over the past 10 years.

    Another OGO partner, Gilles Hernandez, explained: “We would be targeting a niche market of very high quality nickel used in aeronautics and edge-cutting technologies, especially in Europe, where nickel is now classified as ‘strategic metal’.”

    Although KNS was designed to produce 60,000 tonnes of nickel a year, that target was never reached.

    OGO said it would only aim for 15,000 tonnes per year and would only re-employ 400 of the 1200 laid-off staff.

    New Caledonia’s third nickel plant, owned by historic Société Le Nickel (SLN, a subsidiary of French mining giant Eramet), which is also facing major hardships for the same reasons, is said to currently operate at minimal capacity.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • COMMENTARY: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta

    Pope Francis has completed his historic first visit to Southeast Asian and Pacific nations.

    The papal apostolic visit covered Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Singapore and Timor-Leste.

    This visit is furst to the region after he was elected as the leader of the Catholic Church based in Rome and also as the Vatican Head of State.

    Under Pope Francis’ leadership, many church traditions have been renewed. For example, he gives space to women to take some important leadership and managerial roles in Vatican.

    Many believe that the movement of the smiling Pope in distributing roles to women and lay groups is a timely move. Besides, during his term as the head of the Vatican state, the Pope has changed the Vatican’s banking and financial system.

    Now, it is more transparent and accountable.

    Besides, the Holy Father bluntly acknowledges the darkness concealed by the church hierarchy for years and graciously apologises for the wrong committed by the church.

    The Pope invites the clergy (shepherds) to live simply, mingling and uniting with the members of the congregation (sheep).

    The former archbishop of Buenos Aires also encourages the church to open itself to accepting congregations who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT).

    However, Papa Francis’ encouragement was flooded with protests from some members of the church. And it is still an ongoing spiritual battle that has not been fully delivered in Catholic Church.

    Two encyclicals
    Pope Francis, the successor of Apostle Peter, is a humble and modest man. Under his papacy, the highest authority of the Catholic Church has issued four apostolic works, two in the form of encyclicals, namely Lumen Fidei (Light of Faith) and Laudato si’ (Praise Be to You) and two others in the form of apostolic exhortations, namely Evangelii Gaudium (Joy of the Gospel) and Amoris Laetitia (Joy of Love).

    Of the four masterpieces of the Pope, the encyclical Laudato si’ seems to gain most attention globally.

    The encyclical Laudato si’ is an invitation from the Holy Father to human beings to be responsible for the existence of the universe. He begs us human beings not to exploit and torture Mother Nature.

    We should respect nature because it provides plants and cares for us like a mother does for her children. Therefore, caring for the environment or the universe is a calling that needs to be responded to genuinely.

    This apostolic call is timely because the world is experiencing various threats of natural devastation that leads to natural disasters.

    The irresponsible and greedy behaviour of human beings has destroyed the beauty and diversity of the flora and fauna. Other parts of the world have experienced and are experiencing adverse impacts.

    This is also taking place in the Pacific region.

    Sinking cities
    The World Economy Forum (2019) reports that it is estimated there will be eleven cities in the world that will “sink” by 2100. The cities listed include Jakarta (Indonesia), Lagos (Nigeria), Houston (Texas-US), Dhaka (Bangladesh), Virginia Beach (Virginia-US), Bangkok (Thailand), New Orleans (Louisiana-US), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Alexandra (Egypt), and Miami (Florida-US).

    During the visit of the 266th Pope, he addressed the importance of securing and protecting our envirinment.

    During the historic interfaith dialogue held at the Jakarta’s Istiqlal Mosque on September 5, the 87-year-old Pope said Indonesia was blessed with rainforest and rich in natural resources.

    He indirectly referred to the Land of Papua — internationally known as West Papua. The message was not only addressed to the government of Indonesia, but also to Papua New Guinea.

    The apostolic visit amazed people in Indonesia which is predominantly a Muslim nation. The humbleness and friendliness of Papa Francis touched the hearts of many, not only Christians, but also people with other religious backgrounds.

    Witnessing the presence of the Pope in Jakarta firsthand, we could certainly testify that his presence has brought tremendous joy and will be remembered forever. Those who experienced joy were not only because of the direct encounter.

    Some were inspired when watching the broadcast on the mainstream or social media.

    The Pope humbly made himself available to be greeted by his people and blessed those who approached him. Those who received the greeting from the Holy Father also came from different age groups — starting from babies in the womb, toddlers and teenagers, young people, adults, the elderly and brothers and sisters with disabilities.

    Pope brings inner comfort
    An unforgettable experience of faith that the people of the four nations did not expect, but experienced, was that the presence of the Pope Francis brought inner comfort. It was tremendously significant given the social conditions of Indonesia, PNG and Timor-Leste are troubled politically and psychologically.

    State policies that do not lift the people out of poverty, practices of injustice that are still rampant, corruption that seems endemic and systemic, the seizure of indigenous people’s customary land by giant companies with government permission, and an economic system that brings profits to a handful of people are some of the factors that have caused disturbed the inner peace of the people.

    In Indonesia, soon after the inauguration on October 20 of the elected President and Vice-President, Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka, the people of Indonesia will welcome the election of governors and deputy governors, regents and deputy regents, mayors and deputy mayors.

    This will include the six provinces in the Land of Papua. The simultaneous regional elections will be held on November 27.

    The public will monitor the process of the regional election. Reflecting on the presidential election which allegedly involved the current President’s “interference”, in the collective memory of democracy lovers there is a possibility of interference from the government that will lead the nation.

    Could that happen? Only time will tell. The task of all elements of society is to jointly maintain the values of honest, honest and open democracy.

    Pope Francis in his book, Let Us Dream, the Path to the Future (2020) wrote:

    “We need a politics that can integrate and dialogue with the poor, the excluded, and the vulnerable that gives people a say in the decisions that impact their lives.”

    Hope for people’s struggles
    This message of Pope Francis has a deep meaning in the current context. What is common everywhere, politicians only make sweet promises or give fake hope to voters so that they are elected.

    After being elected, the winning or elected candidate tends to be far from the people.

    Therefore, a fragment of the Holy Father’s invitation in the book needs to be a shared concern. The written and implied meaning of the fragment above is not far from the democratic values adopted by Indonesia and other Pacific nations.

    Pacific Islanders highly value the views of each person. But lately the noble values that were well-cultivated and inherited by the ancestors are increasingly diminishing.

    Hopefully, the governments will deliver on the real needs and struggles of the people.

    “Our greatest power is not in the respect that others have for us, but the service we can give others,” wrote Pope Francis.

    Laurens Ikinia is a lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta, and is a member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN).

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Te Aniwaniwa Paterson of Te Ao Māori News

    West Papuan independence advocate Octo Mote is in Aotearoa New Zealand to win support for independence for West Papua, which has been ruled by Indonesia for more than 60 years.

    Mote is vice-president of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and is being hosted in New Zealand by the Green Party, which Mote said had always been a “hero” for West Papua.

    He spoke at a West Papua seminar at the Māngere Mountain Education Centre tonight.

    ULMWP president Benny Wenda has alleged more than 500,000 Papuans have been killed since the occupation, and millions of hectares of ancestral forests, rivers and mountains have been destroyed or polluted for “corporate profit”.

    The struggle for West Papuans
    “Being born a West Papuan, you are already an enemy of the nation [Indonesia],” Mote says.

    “The greatest challenge we are facing right now is that we are facing the colonial power who lives next to us.”

    If West Papuans spoke up about what was happening, they were considered “separatists”, Mote says, regardless of whether they are journalists, intellectuals, public servants or even high-ranking Indonesian generals.

    “When our students on the ground speak of justice, they’re beaten up, put in jail and [the Indonesians] kill so many of them,” Mote says.

    Mote is a former journalist and says that while he was working he witnessed Indonesian forces openly fire at students who were peacefully demonstrating their rights.

    “We are in a very dangerous situation right now. When our people try to defend their land, the Indonesian government ignores them and they just take the land without recognising we are landowners,” he says.

    The ‘ecocide’ of West Papua
    The ecology in West Papua iss being damaged by mining, deforestation, and oil and gas extraction. Mote says Indonesia wants to “wipe them from the land and control their natural resources”.

    He says he is trying to educate the world that defending West Papua means defending the world, especially small islands in the Pacific.

    West Papua is the western half of the island of New Guinea, bordering the independent nation of Papua New Guinea. New Guinea has the world’s third-largest rainforest after the Amazon and Congo and it is crucial for climate change mitigation as they sequester and store carbon.

    Mote says the continued deforestation of New Guinea, which West Papuan leaders are trying to stop, would greatly impact on the small island countries in the Pacific, which are among the most vulnerable to climate change.

    Mote also says their customary council in West Papua has already considered the impacts of climate change on small island nations and, given West Papua’s abundance of land the council says that by having sovereignty they would be able to both protect the land and support Pacific Islanders who need to migrate from their home islands.

    In 2021, West Papuan leaders pledged to make ecocide a serious crime and this week Vanuatu, Fiji and Samoa submitted a court proposal to the International Criminal Court (ICJ) to recognise ecocide as a crime.

    Support from local Indonesians
    Mote says there are Indonesians who support the indigenous rights movement for West Papuans. He says there are both NGOs and a Papuan Peace Network founded by West Papuan peace campaigner Neles Tebay.

    “There is a movement growing among the academics and among the well-educated people who have read the realities among those who are also victims of the capitalist investors, especially in Indonesia when they introduced the Omnibus Law.”

    The so-called Omnibus Law was passed in 2020 as part of outgoing President Joko Widodo’s goals to increase investment and industrialisation in Indonesia. The law was protested against because of concerns it would be harmful for workers due to changes in working conditions, and the environment because it would allow for increased deforestation.

    Mote says there has been an “awakening”, especially among the younger generations who are more open-minded and connected to the world, who could see it both as a humanitarian and an environmental issue.

    The ‘transfer’ of West Papua to Indonesia
    “The [former colonial nation] Dutch [traded] us like a cow,” Mote says.

    The former Dutch colony was passed over to Indonesia in 1963 in disputed circumstances but the ULMWP calls it an “invasion”.

    From 1957, the Soviet Union had been supplying arms to Indonesia and, during that period, the Indonesian Communist Party had become the largest political party in the country.

    The US government urged the Dutch government to give West Papua to Indonesia in an attempt to appease the communist-friendly Indonesian government as part of a US drive to stop the spread of communism in Southeast Asia.

    The US engineered a meeting between both countries, which resulted in the New York Agreement, giving control of West Papua to the UN in 1962 and then Indonesia a year later.

    The New York Agreement stipulated that the population of West Papua would be entitled to an act of self-determination.

    The ‘act of no choice’
    This decolonisation agreement was titled the 1969 Act of Free Choice, which is referred to as “the act of no choice” by pro-independence activists.

    Mote says they witnessed “how the UN allowed Indonesia to cut us into pieces, and they didn’t say anything when Indonesia manipulated our right to self-determination”.

    The manipulation Mote refers to is for the Act of Free Choice. Instead of a national referendum, the Indonesian military hand-picked 1025 West Papuan “representatives” to vote on behalf of the 816,000 people. The representatives were allegedly threatened, bribed and some were held at gunpoint to ensure a unanimous vote.

    Leaders of the West Papuan independence movement assert that this was not a real opportunity to exercise self-determination as it was manipulated. However, it was accepted by the UN.

    Pacific support at UN General Assembly
    Mote has came to Aotearoa after the 53rd Pacific Island Forum Leaders summit in Tonga last week and he has come to discuss plans over the next five years. Mote hopes to gain support to take what he calls the “slow-motion genocide” of West Papua back to the UN General Assembly.

    “In that meeting we formulated how we can help really push self-determination as the main issue in the Pacific Islands,” Mote says.

    Mote says there was a focus on self-determination of West Papua, Kanaky/New Caledonia and Tahiti. He also said the focus was on what he described as the current colonisation issue with capitalists and global powers having vested interests in the Pacific region.

    The movement got it to the UN General Assembly in 2018, so Mote says it is achievable. In 2018, Pacific solidarity was shown as the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu and the Republic of Vanuatu all spoke out in support of West Papua.

    They affirmed the need for the matter to be returned to the United Nations, and the Solomon Islands voiced its concerns over human rights abuses and violations.

    ULMWP vice-president Octo Mote
    ULMWP vice-president Octo Mote . . . in the next five years Pacific nations need to firstly make the Indonesian government “accountable” for its actions in West Papua. Image: Poster screenshot

    What needs to be done
    He says that in the next five years Pacific nations need to firstly make the Indonesian government accountable for its actions in West Papua. He also says outgoing President Widodo should be held accountable for his “involvement”.

    Mote says New Zealand is the strongest Pacific nation that would be able to push for the human rights and environmental issues happening, especially as he alleges Australia always backs Indonesian policies.

    He says he is looking to New Zealand to speak up about the atrocities taking place in West Papua and is particularly looking for support from the Greens, Labour and Te Pāti Māori for political support.

    The coalition government announced a plan of action on July 30 this year, which set a new goal of $6 billion in annual two-way trade with Indonesia by 2029.

    “New Zealand is strongly committed to our partnership with Indonesia,” Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters said at the time.

    “There is much more we can and should be doing together.”

    Te Aniwaniwa Paterson is a digital producer for Te Ao Māori News. Republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • On 28 July 2024 Muhammadiyah, Indonesia’s second largest Islamic organisation, officially announced that it would accept an offer of mining concessions from President Joko Widodo’s government. This followed the decision of the nation’s largest Islamic organisation, Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), which accepted their concession a month earlier.

    Opponents within and outside both organisations have criticised their decisions to accept the mining concessions. Such criticism was often expressed on environmental grounds: NU and Muhammadiyah should not engage in mining activities, critics said, since doing so would mean depriving local communities—including those where their followers live—of their economic and communal rights.

    Another line of argument against the adoption of the mining concessions is that once NU or Muhammadiyah agreed to accept them, it would endanger their reputation as independent and democratic civil society organisations.

    Former president and NU leader Abdurrahman Wahid thought that NU’s autonomy from the state was necessary because the organisation seeks to promote “social transformation on a more complete and fundamental level.” He further defined social transformation within NU to include: freedom of speech, an impartial legal system, and economic and social equality. Similar sentiments were also expressed by Amien Rais as Muhammadiyah general chairman during the mid-1990s, when he stated that he wished to transform Indonesia’s leading modernist Muslim organisation into a pro-reform and pro-democracy movement.

    As Robin Bush has written, by the mid-1990s many young NU activists responded to Wahid’s increasingly oppositional position to the Suharto regime by developing a  “civil society discourse” comprising three elements: NU autonomy vis-a-vis the state; opposition to conservative and radical Islamism; and the promotion of pluralism and tolerance.

    NU-affiliated NGOs like the Institute for the Study and Development of Human Resources (Lakpesdam) regularly sponsored workshops featuring NU’s promotion of pluralism, religious tolerance, and human rights, alongside coursework on political education and participation, all directed to promote NU’s civil society discourse to a new generation of NU activists throughout Indonesia.

    After Indonesia’s democratic transition, NU and Muhammadiyah resumed their political activism  by founding political parties: the National Awakening Party (PKB) for NU and the National Mandate Party (PAN) for Muhammadiyah. Politicians from both organisations received ministerial appointments and participated in national and regional legislative elections. From 1998 until 2014, both participated in national politics through the two parties, while contributing to civil, democratic political discourses in Indonesia.

    The price of patronage

    However, the relationship between the two religious CSOs and the state has changed under the Widodo presidency. Under pressure to counter the narratives of hardline Islamist groups like the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), Jokowi made NU his primary partner to counter FPI-like groups and to promote a “moderate” Indonesian Islam both domestically and worldwide.

    Over his decade-long presidency Widodo has bestowed extensive patronage towards NU clerics and politicians. This patronage has taken the form of political appointments (e.g. Vice President Ma’ruf Amin, Minister of Religious Affairs Yaqut Cholil Qomas, and others) as well as financial benefits (e.g. subsidies toward NU-run pesantren boarding schools, credit facilities for shari’a-based cooperatives and rural financial institutions, and more).

    During Widodo’s second term (2019––2024) NU received even more state patronage from the Religious Affairs Ministry, now under control of Minister for Religious Affairs Yaqut Cholil Qomas, who is the brother of NU chairman Yahya Cholil Staquf. Such patronage has included financial support towards construction of nearly two dozen NU-affiliated universities; a  religious moderation program that supports NU preachers and lecturers to promote “moderate Islam” in other ministries and state-owned enterprises suspected of being infiltrated by “radical’’ Islamic preachers and groups; and various state projects directed to support NU and its various affiliates (badan otonom).

    This patronage has come at the price of NU’s ability to criticise, among other things, the recent legislation pushed by the Widodo administration that critics say has contributed to Indonesia’s ongoing democratic regression. This includes the 2019 revisions to anti-corruption laws that significantly weakened Indonesia’s anti-corruption commission, and the 2023 Criminal Code, which curtails freedom of expression and the rights of religious minorities and LGBTQ people.

    Several NU public intellectuals, including prominent advocates of the organisation’s “civil society discourse” during the late 1990s and early 2000s, are now defending the Widodo administration’s policy and priorities, contradicting their earlier support for liberal democratic norms. Ulil Abshar Abdalla, co-founder of the Liberal Islam Movement (Jaringan Islam Liberal or JIL) and formerhead of NU’s Lakpesdam think tank, wrote the day after the February 2024 presidential elections that the victory of Prabowo Subianto and Gibran Rakabuming Raka showed that the majority of Indonesians wanted to continue President Widodo’s policies. He claimed that the results showed that Indonesians “have other pressing interests” than safeguarding democracy, which he dismissed as an idea expressed primarily by “a few middle-class academics”.

    My recent conversations with sources within NU have confirmed that following Ulil’s lead, NU is in the process of revising its position on state–civil society relations. Instead of being an independent and autonomous CSO—like what Wahid and other NU activists were advocating in the 1990s—NU now views itself as an integral partner of the Indonesian state. In the new mindset, NU, as an ulama-led organisation, is mandated by Islamic teachings “to assist and defend” the state from any potential threats, whether from radical Islamists or from other civil society actors who express critical views against the state and its policies. Meanwhile, the earlier NU ethos pioneered by Wahid is dismissed, according to my sources, as an idea inspired by liberal Western political thought that is not applicable to the contemporary Indonesian socio-political context.

    It was within this context that in June 2024 NU formally announced its acceptance of a coal mining concession offered by the Jokowi administration by the then investment minister Bahlil Lahadalia. NU chairman Yahya Cholil Staquf publicly stated that his organisation agreed to accept the concession because “it needed all available revenue sources to fund the [its] activities—as long as they are religiously permissible (halal)”.

    Indonesia’s killer commodity

    The kretek cigarette industry and its devastating public health impacts are sustained via a huge apparatus of labour, and appeals to cultural nationalism

    Sources close to the NU leadership board I spoke with have suggested that the decision to accept mining concessions was also influenced by a concern that NU might receive fewer cabinet appointments and state patronage under the Prabowo administration, which will assume office on 20 October. Historically, Prabowo has developed closer relationships with Islamic leaders and activists from modernist-leaning organisations like Muhammadiyah and the Indonesian Islamic Propagation Council (Dewan Dakwah Islam Indonesia, or DDII). His relationship with figures like former Muhammadiyah chairman Din Syamsuddin date back to the 1990s, when Prabowo was a mid-career army officer.

    Prabowo has few similarly close relations with NU figures (though he has won the endorsement of senior NU officials, such as the organisation’s former chair Said Aqil Siradj, in his past presidential campaigns). His landslide victory in the 2024 Indonesian presidential election, and the overwhelming support from NU voters towards Prabowo, was largely attributed to Widodo’s tacit endorsement of his campaign, which led to the NU leadership supporting him as well. Accepting the state’s offer of mining concessions, my enquiries have suggested, was driven by NU leaders’ belief that mining income would be substantive enough to offset any potential downturns in state patronage from Prabowo.

    Muhammadiyah takes the NU path

    Muhammadiyah’s decision to accept mining licences is more puzzling. Unlike NU, Muhammadiyah is not considered a close ally of the outgoing president. It has either publicly opposed, or at least raised serious concerns about, many of Widodo’s major legislative initiatives, including the 2019 amendments to the Anti-Corruption Law, the 2020 Omnibus Law on Job Creation, and the 2023 Criminal Code. Muhammadiyah leaders have frequently issued statements criticising ethical and legal misconduct by Widodo and other senior officials.

    Most recently, in November 2023 former KPK chief and current Muhammadiyah national board member Busyro Muqqodas declared that the Constitutional Court (MK) ruling that allowed Widodo’s son Gibran Rakabuming Raka to stand for the vice presidency was a “poison affecting Indonesian democracy”. Muhammadiyah’s Law, Human Rights and Philosophy Council, which Busyro chairs, also issued a statement declaring that former MK chief justice Anwar Usman ought to be “dishonourably discharged from his position” for committing major violations of the MK’s code of ethics.

    Sources close to the Muhammadiyah national board I recently interviewed revealed that the board had received significant pressure from the presidential palace to accept its offer of mining concessions, through one of the board’s members Muhadjir Effendy, who also serves in Widodo’s cabinet as Coordinating Minister for Human Development and Cultural Affairs. According to these sources, Muhadjir forwarded Widodo’s message to the leadership board, stating that Muhammadiyah must accept this concession because it would otherwise be considered as a personal insult by the president, who feels he has done a great deal to support the “moderate” Islam promoted by both Muhammadiyah and NU. The message concluded that if Muhammadiyah continues to refuse the offer of mining concessions then it will not receive any state patronage—especially cabinet appointments—under the Prabowo administration.

    Muhadjir, according to my contacts, also made a personal appeal to other Muhammadiyah board members, saying that he was the only person seeking to ensure that organisation still gets the kind of political benefits—both high-level appointments and other state patronage—from Widodo (even if the amount was much less than what NU received). For instance, Muhadjir’s ministerial office has run its own religious moderation program, staffed by Muhammadiyah activists and separate from the main moderation programs run by the NU-controlled Ministry of Religious Affairs. Given these considerations, Muhadjir implored other Muhammadiyah leaders to consider whether they really want to risk their organisation being left with nothing under Prabowo if they dare to refuse the mining concession offer. Due to these considerations, the leadership board finally decided to accept the concession as a “hedging” tactic to ensure that they will not lose favour of the outgoing president.

    Muhammadiyah’s leadership also believes that unlike Widodo, who has primarily aligned himself with NU when it comes to promoting “moderate” Islam, Prabowo is more willing to accommodate Muhammadiyah, given his past close relations with the organisation’s figures. Hence, they expect him to give them ministerial and other key appointments. Muhammadiyah leaders are very keen to regain several ministries that its politicians have historically been appointed in the past, particularly the education ministry. Hence, its decision to accept the mining concessions is part of a ”pay-to-play” strategy to be in line for ministerial and other high-level appointments under the incoming administration.

    Conclusion

    Muhammadiyah and NU’s decision to accept mining concessions is part of a process of political bargaining both organisations are engaged in with Indonesia’s political establishment in anticipation of future appointments and patronage. For both organisations, their decision is a rational measure to retain their political influence and safeguard their financial interests amid the uncertainties surrounding the ongoing presidential transition.

    Their decision to bargain with the state and accept the mining concessions has nonetheless diminished their credentials as independent civil society organisations — particularly among their own activists. It also raises serious questions about whether in the long run, both organisations will be able to retain their autonomy as civil society organisations and their willingness to speak out strongly against decisions made by the Prabowo administration that may have adverse effects not only on NU and Muhammadiyah’s constituencies, but on Indonesia’s democratic norms and institutions.

    Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to New Mandala

    Keep up to date with opinionated, informed and accessible commentary on Southeast Asia from leading researchers. Leave your email address in the field below and you’ll receive new posts in your inbox as they are published.

    The post Clerics to coal miners: the decline of Indonesia’s Islamic civil society appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.


  • This content originally appeared on Human Rights Watch and was authored by Human Rights Watch.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • Development of the KF-21 combat aircraft is going well, and Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is now exploring manned-unmanned teaming possibilities. Korea Aerospace Industries (KAI) is making good progress on development of the KF-21 Boramae (Young Hawk) combat aircraft. Since the first flight in July 2022, six prototypes including two twin-seaters have logged nearly 800 test […]

    The post Korea’s Young Hawk is Growing Up appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • On 17 August 2024, Indonesia’s president, Joko Widodo, travelled to the still-under-construction new capital, Nusantara, to celebrate Independence Day. The presence of both the president and his successor, Prabowo Subianto, however, has not been enough to quell the ongoing controversies and discontent. Five years after Jokowi’s announcement of the Nusantara Capital City (Ibu Kota Nusantara, or IKN) project, widespread scepticism has emerged, often from drastically opposing perspectives.

    Some question whether Jakarta-based public servants will be willing to relocate to Nusantara’s location in East Kalimantan, a region perceived as backward and isolated. Others express concern for the land and the local residents who are soon to be displaced. The president had once proudly announced his intention to personally move from Jakarta to the new presidential palace by the time of Independence Day this year. Three days before the date, he declared that the plan would be postponed due to incomplete infrastructure. This leaves critics in a difficult position: should they rejoice over the project’s slow progress, or worry about the prolonged uncertainty over its prospects?

    Standing in front of the unfinished presidential palace, the Istana Garuda, Widodo would be picturing a finished building that looks surprisingly comparable to something like in the image below, which shows the business service centre of China’s Xiong’an New Area, a planned city in the hinterland of Beijing that has been dubbed Xi Jinping’s “pet project”. Surprisingly, few have discussed the ideological and practical similarities between these two projects. Indeed, Indonesia has its own history of planning to relocate its capital from Jakarta that is almost as long as the history of the republic itself. When international comparisons are given, the examples are usually Canberra and Brasilia (Putrajaya and Naypyidaw come next). Xiong’an, situated in north China, is rarely talked about—perhaps precisely because Xiong’an’s own controversies are too similar to those of the IKN.

    Business and Service Convention Center, Xiong’an (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

    Dubbed a “millennium plan”, Xiong’an New Area is the crown jewel of Xi Jinping’s era of mega-projects. It aims to gradually shift much of Beijing’s population and activities to a previously desolate area 180 kilometres to its south, in order to alleviate the capital’s perceived worsening overpopulation. With billions of Chinese yuan invested in its preliminary construction, the project emphasises sustainability and quality rather than the rapid pace of development that characterised China’s previous four decades of urbanisation. By “millennium”, Xi’s administration shows its determination to bring about permanent changes to the nation that are beyond the limits of presidential terms—or in the Chinese historical consciousness, dynastic rotations.

    Many legitimately speculate that pushing through this costly project was a major motivation behind Xi’s pursuit of a third term—a scenario not unfamiliar to Indonesians after witnessing Jokowi’s political manoeuvring in the recent election. After years of intensive construction, local villages have been razed, new buildings have sprung up, but few newcomers have moved in. Xiong’an’s experience over the past decade shows us both the best and worst-case scenarios Jokowi could imagine: speedy, high-quality construction, but with lacklustre economic returns.

    Xi Jinping visits the Xiong’an New Area, January 2019. (Photo: Xiong’an New Area on Facebook)

    Deindustrialisation

    A common pitfall for both defenders and sceptics of the infant IKN was to wishfully imagine a place of purity—of pristine nature and undisturbed natives. Similarly, observations on the Chinese equivalent often emphasise the tabula rasa state of the Baiyangdian wetland chosen for Xiong’an’s development. The media tend to be preoccupied with events within the specific administrative boundaries of Penajam Paser Utara district, the site of IKN, and Xiong’an, which are indeed rural. Once we zoom out to the larger economic structures of East Kalimantan and eastern Hebei province, the pictures will look very different.

    In East Kalimantan, mining, oil and gas refining, and timber processing have been traditionally the dominating economic sectors. The society of East Kalimantan came under as much, if not more, influence of exploitative industrialisation, demographic displacement, and settlement from outsiders than any the other major island of Southeast Asia. Coal mines and oil wells had begun invading the Balikpapan area for more than 130 years, bringing in large numbers of labourers from Java and China. Even before these industrial developments, the towns of Samarinda and Paser were urbanised by generations of migrants from the south coast of Borneo as well as Sulawesi.

    The psychological shock, or “kaget”, of building modern industrial cities amidst the jungle is already relegated to the past tense. Expecting environment-oriented criticism of IKN, the Indonesian government had been gradually shifting its narratives about the new capital from that of “building a green city in the primary forest” to that of “reclaiming a green city from misused and depleted wastelands.” The effort could be seen in the gestural closing of several illegal mining concessions on land reserved for IKN. Observers doubt the substance of this move, as many mines and drills, including those owned by the very individuals pushing for the project, continue to operate unhindered.

    The experience of Hebei, the province where Xiong’an is located, in the past decades offer some lessons for the potential future of East Kalimantan. Once a predominantly agricultural region, the province rapidly industrialised in the 20th century thanks to the discovery of mineral reserves. As nearby Tianjin and Beijing shifted towards service and technological sectors, Hebei received most of the heavy industries moving out from these large cities in the 1990s and early 2000s, worsening the already severe pollution of its environment. Degradation of the land’s arability made the populace even more dependent on the industrial jobs in a vicious cycle. Even though it is located right next to the capital, Hebei has ironically long been considered a peripheral “backwater” amidst China’s extremely uneven economic development.

    Xiong’an New Area photographed from a drone, March 2024 (Photo: Xinhua)

    After Xi assumed power in 2012, he had been determined to curtail the worsening air pollution in Beijing and to return “clear water and green mountains” to China’s heavily industrialised north, pushing for Hebei’s deindustrialisation. A large number of cottage industries were shut down every year since then, and air quality in Beijing had been largely restored. Baoding, the prefecture-level city (equivalent to an Indonesian district or kabupaten) where Xiong’an is located, proudly broadcasts itself in 2018 as the first one of the province achieving “steel-free” status, meaning that every steel mill has closed down.

    In this sense, IKN and Xiong’an are ideologically motivated projects imposed by political elites in the centre to transform a periphery perceived as backward, dirty, and inefficient. The catch lies in the obvious economic dependence of both China and Indonesia on the very sectors they ostensibly seek to eliminate. Local governments in Hebei struggle financially without the tax revenues from smaller industries, not to mention the livelihoods lost by ordinary citizens. Fearing a similar outcome, Jokowi and Prabowo Subianto have yet to commit to removing dirty industries from East Kalimantan. IKN’s initiative to install solar panels pales in comparison to the province’s colossal coal-producing capacity, which sustains hundreds of thousands of families. Jokowi has also repeatedly promised to build, expand, or retain oil and gas facilities in East Kalimantan, likely to maintain morale in one of the few regions of Indonesia where hilirisasi, or industrial down-streaming, has yielded tangible economic benefits.

    Deglobalisation

    At first glance, the two projects receive markedly different treatment in their respective countries. While Xi’s team showers Xiong’an with grandiose terms such as “millennium plan” and “ecological civilisation” in official rhetoric, it is not an attempt to create a new political centre from scratch. Critics have noted certain political symbolism in Xi’s vision for Xiong’an, but these pale in comparison to the heaps of nationalistic narratives surrounding IKN. In this year’s Independence Day celebrations, the participating grandees dressed colourfully in traditional ethnic fashions (pakaian adat) from across the archipelago. A real-life version of Tien Soeharto’s nationalistic playground, Taman Mini Indonesia Indah, was broadcasted in front of the whole country, matching the actual installation of a miniature IKN in Taman Mini itself in 2023. Xiong’an has had its moments like this, but after seven years it has largely faded from the Chinese public attention.

    If we look beneath the surface of nationalism, however, IKN and Xiong’an projects share another layer of shared ideology. By deemphasising metropolises such as Beijing and Jakarta, IKN and Xiong’an represent the two governments’ disengagement from global capitalism as source of legitimacy. Asia’s political elites are seeking new paradigms in a deglobalising world, and this introspective turn is a part of it. As seen in the landmark structures of IKN and Xiong’an, there is a clear effort to create aesthetically distinctive images and icons that diverge from the typical modern Asian city. Yet, an uncanny similarity emerges: an architectural style reminiscent of Stalin-era Soviet bloc and the imperial Japanese Teikan Yoshiki of Manchukuo. Both were attempts to deliver nationalistic bearings for architectural aesthetics in an industrialising and globalising world, comparable to those promised by IKN and Xiong’an. At their core is the symbolic purification of the self from Western pollution. The pool of alternative artistic inspiration, however, appears limited.

    Indonesian President Joko Widodo delivering a presentation on the then-unnamed new capital city, October 2022 (Photo: Joko Widodo on Facebook)

    In the case of IKN, various Indonesian officials have already emphasised its aesthetic mission to represent an Indonesia free of Dutch colonial influences . The Indonesian government does not shy from admitting Jakarta’s myriad problems, but seems to blame many of them on the colonial origins of the city. Ridwan Kamil, a potential contender for the governorship of Jakarta who also holds the office of IKN’s “curator”, repeatedly made promises about purging IKN from colonial “concepts” and “nuances” of Jakarta. Such was also the reason why cities with deep colonial histories, such as Bandung and Bogor, were dropped as candidates. Balikpapan’s colonial origins, meanwhile, could be conveniently ignored, as IKN comfortably sits outside its administrative boundaries. Superficial as it sounds, Jokowi is indeed bringing into reality an ideological ambition that had been dreamt of by generations of Indonesia’s nationalists. By way of the trans-Kalimantan highway, one can reach IKN from Palangkaraya, Soekarno’s own attempt to create a purely Indonesian city unpolluted by colonialism.

    The growing contradictions of Singapore’s HDB scheme

    A notionally egalitarian public housing program has come to fuel class and intergenerational inequalities

    Similarly, Xiong’an is designed to be flat, low, and sparse. It is a deliberate move to divorce from the previous “new areas” such as Shenzhen, Pudong (Shanghai), and Binhai (Tianjin), where development was more vertical, and oriented toward speed and connectivity. Some observers argue that for Xi, Xiong’an symbolises China’s return to a distinctively Chinese mode of development, rejecting the previous decades of “reform and opening Up” as compromises to a world order dominated by the west. Anticipating criticisms of Xiong’an’s immediate economic utility and attractiveness, Xi gave it the unusual official designation of a “millennium plan”, creatively situating it within an imagined continuum of Chinese history and detaching it from the logic of global capitalism.

    Both projects thus encompass some degree of deterrence or resistance against the West-dominated world order. Unfortunately, to a large degree, the common people who actually live in these countries still have to abide by the rules of global capitalism. Jakarta and Beijing will continue to attract migrants from the provinces, while Nusantara and Xiong’an’s current desolation might persist for a while. Slow return of investment is far from the worst case scenario, though: thanks to the late James C. Scott we know how bad and costly it can get if governments indeed turn to draconian measures to force particular demographic patterns or to force mostly any grand designs. With Beijing’s violent eviction of migrant workers from its suburbs in 2017 still looming in the residents’ memory, would the two governments actually wait for a thousand years?

    A future for the locals?

    By 2024, the Xiong’an New Area has moved most of its original villagers into newly completed apartment buildings. A video on Bilibili shows us an honest conversation between the content creator and a villager-turned-taxidriver in Xiong’an. As expected, being uprooted from one’s community and dropped into cell-like units makes a shocking experience. Driving through empty streets, the middle-aged man complained about a few things. Costs for utilities and groceries used to be negligible in a rural economy, but suddenly has to be dealt with. Isolation in gated communities makes life tedious and boring. He is still hopeful about the future. He feels that it will be worth it as long as his children and grandchildren may one day benefit by way of having access to good education in a country with extremely unevenly distributed education resources.

    Such is one of the few lessons IKN might learn from Xi’s gamble. While East Kalimantan boasts cities with some of the best quality of life throughout Indonesia, its rural population rarely reap the benefits— especially in terms of access to education. Indigenous and rural communities in Penajam Paser Utara have already made an explicit petition that some of the educational resources that might show up as the Indonesian capital moves should be reserved for them. Amidst all the grand narratives of nation, colonialism, and environment, education remains perhaps the only substantial asset that urbanisation could potentially hope to bring to the displaced locals. As IKN moves forward at a speed that starts to far outpace Xiong’an, we cannot be sure of anything just yet.

    Enjoyed this article? Subscribe to New Mandala

    Keep up to date with opinionated, informed and accessible commentary on Southeast Asia from leading researchers. Leave your email address in the field below and you’ll receive new posts in your inbox as they are published.

    The post Ideological (mega)projects: Xiong’an and Nusantara appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • The Indonesian electronics defense company Hariff Defense Technologies recently conducted live-firing trials of its new SLT – Senjata Lawan Tank (Anti-tank Weapon).   Developed in collaboration with the propellent manufacturer PT Dahana, SLT is a lightweight low-cost, shoulder-fired recoilless weapon. The weapon is under three kilograms loaded with a length of one meter. It fires […]

    The post Indonesia Trials Locally Developed Lightweight Shoulder Fired Weapon appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • Anthony Albanese and Prabowo Subianto announce conclusion of treaty negotiations but reporters weren’t able to ask questions about new deal

    Australia and Indonesia have struck a new security pact that will lead to more joint military exercises and visits, prompting human rights advocates to call for safeguards.

    The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, told the Indonesian defence minister and president-elect, Prabowo Subianto, in Canberra on Tuesday that there was “no more important relationship than the one between our two great nations”.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Anthony Albanese and Prabowo Subianto announce conclusion of treaty negotiations but reporters weren’t able to ask questions about new deal

    Australia and Indonesia have struck a new security pact that will lead to more joint military exercises and visits, prompting human rights advocates to call for safeguards.

    The Australian prime minister, Anthony Albanese, told the Indonesian defence minister and president-elect, Prabowo Subianto, in Canberra on Tuesday that there was “no more important relationship than the one between our two great nations”.

    Sign up for Guardian Australia’s free morning and afternoon email newsletters for your daily news roundup

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Of the international intelligence information that comes to Australian agencies from the Five Eyes, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we have the colonisation of our intelligence agencies These agencies dominate the advice to ministers, writes John Menadue.

    INTERVIEW: John Menadue talks with Michael Lester

    Michael Lester: Hello again listeners to Community Radio Northern Beaches Community Voices and also the Pearls and Irritations podcast. I’m Michael Lester.

    Our guest today is the publisher and founder of the Pearls and Irritations Public Policy online journal, the celebrated John Menadue, with whom we’ll be so pleased to have a discussion today. John has a long and high profile experience in both the public service, for which he’s been awarded the Order of Australia and also in business.

    As a public servant, he was secretary of a number of departments over the years, prime minister and cabinet under a couple of different prime ministers, immigration and ethnic affairs, special minister of state and the Department of Trade and also Ambassador to Japan.

    And in his private sector career, he was a general manager at News Corp and the chief executive of Qantas. These are just among many of his considerable activities.

    These days, as I say, he’s a publisher, public commentator, writer, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome you here to Radio Northern Beaches and the P&I podcast, John.

    John Menadue: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for the welcome and for what you’ve had to say about Pearls and Irritations. My wife says that she’s the Pearl and I’m the Irritation.

    ML: You launched, I think, P&I, what, 2013 or 2011; anyway, you’ve been going a long while. And I noticed the other day you observed that you’d published some 20,000 items on Pearls and Irritations to do with public policy. That’s an amazing achievement itself as an independent media outlet in Australia, isn’t it?

    JM: I’m quite pleased with it and so is Susie, my wife. We started 13 years ago and we did everything. I used to write all the stories and Susie handled the technical, admin, financial matters, but it’s grown dramatically since then. We now contract some of the work to people that can help us in editorial, in production and IT. It’s achieving quite a lot of influence among ministers, politicians, journalists and other opinion leaders in the community.

    We’re looking now at what the future holds. I’m 89 and Susie, my wife, is not in good health. So we’re looking at new governance arrangements, a public company with outside directors so that we can continue Pearls and Irritations well into the future.

    Pearls and Irritations publisher John Menadue
    Pearls and Irritations publisher John Menadue . . . “I’m afraid some of [the mainstream media] are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.” Image: Independent Australian
    ML: So you made a real contribution through this and you’ve given the opportunity for so many expert, experienced, independent voices to commentate on public policy issues of great importance, not least vis-a-vis, might I say, mainstream media treatment of a lot of these issues.

    This is one of your themes and motivations with Pearls and Irritations as a public policy journal, isn’t it? That our mainstream media perhaps don’t do the job they might do in covering significant issues of public policy?

    JM: That’s our hope and intention, but I’m afraid some of them are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.

    It’s quite a shame what mainstream media is serving up today, propaganda for the United States, so focused on America.Occasionally we get nonsense about the British royal family or some irrelevant feature like that.

    But we’re very badly served. Our media shows very little interest in our own region. It is ignorant and prejudiced against China. It is not concerned about our relations with Indonesia, with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.

    It’s all focused on the United States.We’re seeing it on an enormous scale now with the US elections. Even the ABC has a Planet America programme.

    It’s so much focused on America as if we’re an island parked off New York. We are being Americanised in so many areas and particularly in our media.

    ML: What has led to this state of affairs in the way that mainstream media treats major public policy issues these days? It hasn’t always been like that or has it?

    JM: We’ve been a country that’s been frightened of our region, the countries where we have to make our future. And we’ve turned first to the United Kingdom as a protector. That ended in tears in Singapore.

    And now we turn to the United States to look after us in this dangerous world, rather than making our own way as an independent country in our own region. That fear of our region, racism, white Australia, yellow peril all feature in Australia and in our media.

    But when we had good, strong leaders, for example, Malcolm Fraser on refugees, he gave leadership and our role in the region.

    Gough Whitlam did it also. If we have strong leadership, we can break from our focus on the United States at the expense of our own region. In the end, we’ve got to decide that as we live in this region, we’ve got to prosper in this region.

    Security in our region, not from our region. We can do it, but I’m afraid that we’ve been retreating from Asia dreadfully over the last two or three decades. I thought when we had a Labor government, things would be different, but they’re not.

    We are still frightened of our own region and embracing at every opportunity, the United States.

    ML: Another theme of the many years of publishing Pearls and Irritations is that you are concerned to rebuild some degree of public confidence and trust that has been lost in the political system and that you seek to provide a platform for good policy discussion with the emphasis being on public policy. How has the public policy process been undermined or become so narrow minded if that’s one way of describing it?

    JM: Contracting out work to private contractors, the big four accounting firms, getting advice, and not trusting the public service has meant that the quality of our public service has declined considerably. That has to be rebuilt so we get better policy development.

    Ministers have been responsible, particularly Scott Morrison, for downgrading the public service and believing somehow or other that better advice can be obtained in the private sector.

    Another factor has been the enormous growth in the power of lobbyists for corporate Australia and for foreign companies as well. Ministers have become beholden to pressure from powerful lobby groups.

    One particular example, with which I’m quite familiar is in the health field. We are never likely to have real improvements in Medicare, for example, unless the government is prepared to take on the power of lobbyists — the providers, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies in Australia.

    But it’s not just in health where lobbyists are causing so much damage. The power of lobbyists has discredited the role of governments that are seduced by powerful interests rather than serving the community.

    The media have just entrenched this problem. Governments are criticised at every opportunity. Australia can be served by the media taking a more positive view about the importance of good policy development and not getting sidetracked all the time about some trivial personal political issue.

    The media publish the handouts of the lobbyists, whether it’s the health industry or whether it’s in the fossil fuel industries. These are the main factors that have contributed to the lack of confidence and the lack of trust in good government in Australia.

    ML: A particular editorial focus that’s evident in Pearls and Irritations is promoting, I think in your words, a peaceful dialogue and engagement with China. Why is this required and why do you put it forward as a particularly important part of what you see as the mission of your Pearls and Irritations public policy journal?

    JM; China, is our largest market and will continue to be so. There is a very jaundiced view, particularly from the United States, which we then copy, that China is a great threat. It’s not a threat to Australia and it’s not a threat to the United States homeland.

    But it is to a degree a threat, a competitive threat to the United States in economy and trade. America didn’t worry about China when it was poor, but now that it’s strong militarily, economically and in technology, America is very concerned and feels that its future, its own leadership, its hegemony in the world is being contested.

    Unfortunately, Australia has allowed itself to be drawn into the American contest with China.  It’s one provocation after another. If it’s not within China itself, it’s on Taiwan, human rights in Hong Kong. Every opportunity is found by the United States to provoke China, if possible, and lead it into war.

    I think, frankly, China will be more careful than that.

    China’s problem is that it’s successful. And that’s what America cannot accept. By comparison, China does not make the military threat to other countries that the United States presents.

    America is the most violent, aggressive country in the world. The greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States and we’re seeing that particularly now expressed in Israel and in Gaza.

    But there’s a history. America’s almost always at war and has been since its independence in 1776. By contrast, China doesn’t have that sort of record and history. It is certainly concerned about security on its borders, and it has borders with 14 countries.

    But it doesn’t project its power like the US. It doesn’t bomb other countries like the United States. It doesn’t have military bases surrounding the United States.

    The United States has about 800 bases around the world. It’s not surprising that China feels threatened by what the United States is doing. And until the United States comes to a sensible, realistic view about China and deals with it politically, I think they’re going to make continual problems for us.

    We have this dichotomy that China is our major trading partner but it’s seen by many as a strategic threat. I think that is a mistake.

    ML: But what about your views about the public policy process underlying Australia’s policy in reaching the positions that we’re taking vis-a-vis China?

    JM: There are several reasons for it, but I think the major one is that Australian governments, the previous government and now this one, takes the advice of intelligence agencies rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.

    Our intelligence agencies are part of Five Eyes. Of the international intelligence which comes to Australian agencies, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we’ve had the colonisation of our intelligence agencies and they’re the ones that the Australian government listens to.

    Very senior people in those agencies have direct access to the Prime Minister. He listens to them rather than to Penny Wong or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. On most public issues involving China, the Department of Foreign Affairs has become a wallflower.

    It’s a great tragedy because so much of our future in the region depends on good diplomacy with China, with the ASEAN, with the countries of our region.

    Those intelligence agencies in Australia, together with American funded, military funded organisations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have the ear of governments. They’ve also got the ear of the media.

    Stories are leaked to the media all the time from those agencies in order to heighten our fear of the region. The Americanisation of Australia is widespread. But our intelligence agencies have been Americanised as well, and they’re leading us down a very dangerous path.

    ML: I’m speaking with our guest today on Reno Northern Beaches Community Voices and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast with the publisher of Pearls and Irritations Public Policy Journal, John Menadue, distinguished Australian public servant and businessman.

    John, again, it’s one thing to talk about that, but governments, when they change, and we’ve had a change of government recently, very often, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, have the opportunity and do indeed change their advisors and adopt different policies, and one might have expected this to happen.

    Why didn’t we see a change of the guard like we saw a change of government?

    JM: I think this government is timid on almost everything. It was timid from day one on administrative arrangements, departmental arrangements, heads of departments.

    For example, there was no change made to dismantle the Department of Home Affairs with Michael Pezzullo. That should have happened on day one, but it didn’t happen.

    Concerns we’ve had in migration, the role of foreign affairs and intelligence with all those intelligence agencies gathered together in one department has been very bad for Australia.

    Very few changes were made in the leadership of our intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, in ASIO. The same advice has been continued. In almost every area you can look at, the government has been timid, unprepared to take on vested interests, lobbyists, and change departments to make them more attuned to what the government wants to do.

    But the government doesn’t want to upset anyone. And as a result, we’re having a continuation of badly informed ministers and departments that have really not been effectively changed to meet the requirements and needs of, what I thought was a reforming government.

    ML: In that context, AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal might be perhaps a case in point of the broader issues and points you’re making. How would you characterise the nature of the public policy process and decision behind AUKUS? How were the decisions made and in what manner?

    JM: By political appointees and confidants of Morrison. There’s been no public discussion. There’s been no public statement by Morrison or by Albanese about AUKUS — its history, why we’re doing it.

    It’s been left to briefings of journalists and others. I think it’s disgraceful what’s happened in that area. It’s time the Australian government spelled out to us what it all means, but it’s not going to do it. Because I believe the case is so threadbare that it’s not game to put it to the public test.

    And so we’re continuing in this ludicrous arrangement, this fiscal calamity, which Morrison inflicted on the Albanese government which it hasn’t been game to contest.

    My own view is that frankly, AUKUS will never happen. It is so absurd — the delay, the cost, the failure of submarine construction or the delays in the United States, the problems of the submarine construction and maintenance in the United Kingdom.

    For all those sorts of reasons, I don’t think it’ll really happen. Unfortunately, we’re going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time. I don’t think the Department of Defence could run any major project, certainly not a project like this.

    Defence has been unsuccessful in the frigate and numerous other programmes. Our Department of Defence really is not up to the job and that among other reasons gives me reason to believe, and hope frankly, that AUKUS will collapse under its own stupidity.

    But what I think is of more concern is the real estate, which we are freely leasing to the Americans. We had it first with the Marines in Darwin. We have it also coming now with US B-52 aircraft based out of Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth, Western Australia.

    These bases are being made available to the United States with very little control by Australia. The government carries on with nonsense about how our sovereignty will be protected.

    In fact, it won’t be protected. If there’s any difficulties, for example, over a war with China over Taiwan, and the Americans are involved, there is no way Americans will consult with us about whether they can use nuclear armed vessels out of Tindal, for example.

    The Americans will insist that Pine Gap continues to operate. So we are locked in through ceding so much of our real estate and the sovereignty that goes with it.

    Penny Wong has been asked about American aircraft out of Tindal, carrying nuclear weapons and she says to us, sorry but the Americans won’t confirm or deny what they do.

    Good heavens, this is our territory. This is our sovereignty. And we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal, whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.

    Back in the days of Malcolm Fraser, he made a statement to the Parliament insisting that no vessels or aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.

    And now Penny Wong says, we won’t ask. You can do what you like. We know the US won’t confirm or deny.

    When it came to the Solomon Islands, a treaty that the Solomons negotiated with China on strategic and defence matters, Penny Wong was very upset about this secret agreement. There should be transparency, she warned.

    But that’s small fry, compared with the fact that the Australian government will allow United States aircraft to operate out of Tindal without the Australian government knowing whether they are carrying nuclear weapons. I think that’s outrageous.

    ML: Notwithstanding many of the very technical and economic and other discussions around the nuclear submarine’s acquisition, it does seem that politically, at least, and not least from the media presentation of our policy position that we’re very clearly signing up with our US allies against contingency attacks on Taiwan that we would be committed to take a part in and we’re also moving very closely, to well the phrase is interoperability, with the US forces and equipment but also personnel too.

    You mentioned earlier, intelligence personnel and I believe there’s a lot of US personnel in the Department of Defence too?

    JM: That’s right. It’s just another example of Americanisation which is reflected in our intelligence agencies, Department of Defence, interchangeability of our military forces, the fusion of our military or particularly our Navy with the United States. It’s all becoming one fused enterprise with the United States.

    And in any difficulties, we would not be able, as far as I can see, to disengage from what the United States is doing. And we would be particularly vulnerable because of the AUKUS submarines. That’s if they ever come to anything. Because the AUKUS submarines, we are told, would operate off the Chinese coast to attack Chinese submarines or somehow provide intelligence for the Americans and for us.

    These submarines will not be nuclear armed, which means that in the event of a conflict, we would have no bargaining or no counter to China. We’d be the weak link in the alliance with the United States.

    China will not be prepared to strike the mainland United States for fear of massive retaliation. We are the weak link with Pine Gap and other real estate that I mentioned. We would be making ourselves much more vulnerable by this association with the United States.

    Those AUKUS submarines will provide no deterrence for us, but make us more vulnerable if a conflict arises in which we are effectively part of the US military operation.

    ML: How would you characterise the mainstream media’s presentation and treatment of these issues?

    JM: The mainstream media is very largely a mouthpiece for Washington propaganda. And that American propaganda is pushed out through the legacy media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the news agencies, Fox News which in turn are influenced by the military/ business complex which Eisenhower warned us about years ago.

    The power of those groups with the CIA and the influence that they have, means that they overwhelm our media. That’s reflected particularly in The Australian and News Corporation publications.

    I don’t know how some of those journalists can hold their heads. They’ve been on the drip feed of America for so long. They cannot see a world that is not dominated and led by the United States.

    I’m hoping that over time, Pearls and Irritations and other independent media will grow and provide a more balanced view about Australia’s role in our region and in our own development.

    We need to keep good relations with the United States. They’re an important player, but I think that we are unnecessarily risking our future by throwing our lot almost entirely in with the United States.

    Minister for Defence, Richard Marles is leading the Americanisation of our military. I think Penny Wong is to some extent trying to pull him back. But unfortunately so much of the leadership of Australia in defence, in the media, is part and parcel of the mistaken United States view of the world.

    ML: What sort of voices are we not hearing in the media or in Australia on this question?

    JM: It’s not going to change, Michael. I can’t see it changing with Lachlan Murdoch in charge. I think it’s getting worse, if possible, within News Corporation. It’s a very, very difficult and desperate situation where we’re being served so poorly.

    ML: Is there a strong independent media and potential for voices through independent media in Australia?

    JM: No, we haven’t got one. The best hope at the side, of course, is the ABC and SBS public broadcasters, but they’ve been seduced as well by all things American.

    We’ve seen that particularly in recent months over the conflict in Gaza. The ABC and SBS heavily favour Israel. It is shameful.

    They’re still the best hope of the side, but they need more money. They’re getting a little bit more from the government, but I think they are sadly lacking in leadership and proper understanding of what the role of a public broadcaster should be.

    I don’t think there’s a quick answer to any of this. And I hope that we can extricate ourselves without too much damage in the future. Our media has a great responsibility and must be held responsible for the damage that it is causing in Australia.

    ML: Well, look, thank you very much, John Menadue, for joining us on Radio Northern Beaches and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast. John Menadue, publisher, founder, editor-in-chief of, for the last 13 years, the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations. We’ve been discussing the role of the mainstream media, independent media, in the public policy processes too in Australia, and particularly in the context of international relations and in this case our relationships with the US and China.

    Thank you so much John for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us here today. Thanks for joining us John.

    JM: Thank you. Let’s hope for better days.

    John Menadue, founder and publisher of  Pearls and Irritations public policy journal has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines. In 1985, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for public service. In 2009, he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Adelaide in recognition of his significant and lifelong contribution to Australian society. This transcript of the Pearls and Irritations podcast on 10 August 2024 is republished with permission. 

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Of the international intelligence information that comes to Australian agencies from the Five Eyes, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we have the colonisation of our intelligence agencies These agencies dominate the advice to ministers, writes John Menadue.

    INTERVIEW: John Menadue talks with Michael Lester

    Michael Lester: Hello again listeners to Community Radio Northern Beaches Community Voices and also the Pearls and Irritations podcast. I’m Michael Lester.

    Our guest today is the publisher and founder of the Pearls and Irritations Public Policy online journal, the celebrated John Menadue, with whom we’ll be so pleased to have a discussion today. John has a long and high profile experience in both the public service, for which he’s been awarded the Order of Australia and also in business.

    As a public servant, he was secretary of a number of departments over the years, prime minister and cabinet under a couple of different prime ministers, immigration and ethnic affairs, special minister of state and the Department of Trade and also Ambassador to Japan.

    And in his private sector career, he was a general manager at News Corp and the chief executive of Qantas. These are just among many of his considerable activities.

    These days, as I say, he’s a publisher, public commentator, writer, and we’re absolutely delighted to welcome you here to Radio Northern Beaches and the P&I podcast, John.

    John Menadue: Thank you, Michael. Thanks for the welcome and for what you’ve had to say about Pearls and Irritations. My wife says that she’s the Pearl and I’m the Irritation.

    ML: You launched, I think, P&I, what, 2013 or 2011; anyway, you’ve been going a long while. And I noticed the other day you observed that you’d published some 20,000 items on Pearls and Irritations to do with public policy. That’s an amazing achievement itself as an independent media outlet in Australia, isn’t it?

    JM: I’m quite pleased with it and so is Susie, my wife. We started 13 years ago and we did everything. I used to write all the stories and Susie handled the technical, admin, financial matters, but it’s grown dramatically since then. We now contract some of the work to people that can help us in editorial, in production and IT. It’s achieving quite a lot of influence among ministers, politicians, journalists and other opinion leaders in the community.

    We’re looking now at what the future holds. I’m 89 and Susie, my wife, is not in good health. So we’re looking at new governance arrangements, a public company with outside directors so that we can continue Pearls and Irritations well into the future.

    Pearls and Irritations publisher John Menadue
    Pearls and Irritations publisher John Menadue . . . “I’m afraid some of [the mainstream media] are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.” Image: Independent Australian
    ML: So you made a real contribution through this and you’ve given the opportunity for so many expert, experienced, independent voices to commentate on public policy issues of great importance, not least vis-a-vis, might I say, mainstream media treatment of a lot of these issues.

    This is one of your themes and motivations with Pearls and Irritations as a public policy journal, isn’t it? That our mainstream media perhaps don’t do the job they might do in covering significant issues of public policy?

    JM: That’s our hope and intention, but I’m afraid some of them are just incorrigible. They in fact act as stenographers to powerful interests.

    It’s quite a shame what mainstream media is serving up today, propaganda for the United States, so focused on America.Occasionally we get nonsense about the British royal family or some irrelevant feature like that.

    But we’re very badly served. Our media shows very little interest in our own region. It is ignorant and prejudiced against China. It is not concerned about our relations with Indonesia, with the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam.

    It’s all focused on the United States.We’re seeing it on an enormous scale now with the US elections. Even the ABC has a Planet America programme.

    It’s so much focused on America as if we’re an island parked off New York. We are being Americanised in so many areas and particularly in our media.

    ML: What has led to this state of affairs in the way that mainstream media treats major public policy issues these days? It hasn’t always been like that or has it?

    JM: We’ve been a country that’s been frightened of our region, the countries where we have to make our future. And we’ve turned first to the United Kingdom as a protector. That ended in tears in Singapore.

    And now we turn to the United States to look after us in this dangerous world, rather than making our own way as an independent country in our own region. That fear of our region, racism, white Australia, yellow peril all feature in Australia and in our media.

    But when we had good, strong leaders, for example, Malcolm Fraser on refugees, he gave leadership and our role in the region.

    Gough Whitlam did it also. If we have strong leadership, we can break from our focus on the United States at the expense of our own region. In the end, we’ve got to decide that as we live in this region, we’ve got to prosper in this region.

    Security in our region, not from our region. We can do it, but I’m afraid that we’ve been retreating from Asia dreadfully over the last two or three decades. I thought when we had a Labor government, things would be different, but they’re not.

    We are still frightened of our own region and embracing at every opportunity, the United States.

    ML: Another theme of the many years of publishing Pearls and Irritations is that you are concerned to rebuild some degree of public confidence and trust that has been lost in the political system and that you seek to provide a platform for good policy discussion with the emphasis being on public policy. How has the public policy process been undermined or become so narrow minded if that’s one way of describing it?

    JM: Contracting out work to private contractors, the big four accounting firms, getting advice, and not trusting the public service has meant that the quality of our public service has declined considerably. That has to be rebuilt so we get better policy development.

    Ministers have been responsible, particularly Scott Morrison, for downgrading the public service and believing somehow or other that better advice can be obtained in the private sector.

    Another factor has been the enormous growth in the power of lobbyists for corporate Australia and for foreign companies as well. Ministers have become beholden to pressure from powerful lobby groups.

    One particular example, with which I’m quite familiar is in the health field. We are never likely to have real improvements in Medicare, for example, unless the government is prepared to take on the power of lobbyists — the providers, the doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies in Australia.

    But it’s not just in health where lobbyists are causing so much damage. The power of lobbyists has discredited the role of governments that are seduced by powerful interests rather than serving the community.

    The media have just entrenched this problem. Governments are criticised at every opportunity. Australia can be served by the media taking a more positive view about the importance of good policy development and not getting sidetracked all the time about some trivial personal political issue.

    The media publish the handouts of the lobbyists, whether it’s the health industry or whether it’s in the fossil fuel industries. These are the main factors that have contributed to the lack of confidence and the lack of trust in good government in Australia.

    ML: A particular editorial focus that’s evident in Pearls and Irritations is promoting, I think in your words, a peaceful dialogue and engagement with China. Why is this required and why do you put it forward as a particularly important part of what you see as the mission of your Pearls and Irritations public policy journal?

    JM; China, is our largest market and will continue to be so. There is a very jaundiced view, particularly from the United States, which we then copy, that China is a great threat. It’s not a threat to Australia and it’s not a threat to the United States homeland.

    But it is to a degree a threat, a competitive threat to the United States in economy and trade. America didn’t worry about China when it was poor, but now that it’s strong militarily, economically and in technology, America is very concerned and feels that its future, its own leadership, its hegemony in the world is being contested.

    Unfortunately, Australia has allowed itself to be drawn into the American contest with China.  It’s one provocation after another. If it’s not within China itself, it’s on Taiwan, human rights in Hong Kong. Every opportunity is found by the United States to provoke China, if possible, and lead it into war.

    I think, frankly, China will be more careful than that.

    China’s problem is that it’s successful. And that’s what America cannot accept. By comparison, China does not make the military threat to other countries that the United States presents.

    America is the most violent, aggressive country in the world. The greatest threat to peace in the world is the United States and we’re seeing that particularly now expressed in Israel and in Gaza.

    But there’s a history. America’s almost always at war and has been since its independence in 1776. By contrast, China doesn’t have that sort of record and history. It is certainly concerned about security on its borders, and it has borders with 14 countries.

    But it doesn’t project its power like the US. It doesn’t bomb other countries like the United States. It doesn’t have military bases surrounding the United States.

    The United States has about 800 bases around the world. It’s not surprising that China feels threatened by what the United States is doing. And until the United States comes to a sensible, realistic view about China and deals with it politically, I think they’re going to make continual problems for us.

    We have this dichotomy that China is our major trading partner but it’s seen by many as a strategic threat. I think that is a mistake.

    ML: But what about your views about the public policy process underlying Australia’s policy in reaching the positions that we’re taking vis-a-vis China?

    JM: There are several reasons for it, but I think the major one is that Australian governments, the previous government and now this one, takes the advice of intelligence agencies rather than the Department of Foreign Affairs.

    Our intelligence agencies are part of Five Eyes. Of the international intelligence which comes to Australian agencies, 90 percent comes from the CIA and related US intelligence agencies. So in effect we’ve had the colonisation of our intelligence agencies and they’re the ones that the Australian government listens to.

    Very senior people in those agencies have direct access to the Prime Minister. He listens to them rather than to Penny Wong or the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. On most public issues involving China, the Department of Foreign Affairs has become a wallflower.

    It’s a great tragedy because so much of our future in the region depends on good diplomacy with China, with the ASEAN, with the countries of our region.

    Those intelligence agencies in Australia, together with American funded, military funded organisations such as the Australian Strategic Policy Institute have the ear of governments. They’ve also got the ear of the media.

    Stories are leaked to the media all the time from those agencies in order to heighten our fear of the region. The Americanisation of Australia is widespread. But our intelligence agencies have been Americanised as well, and they’re leading us down a very dangerous path.

    ML: I’m speaking with our guest today on Reno Northern Beaches Community Voices and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast with the publisher of Pearls and Irritations Public Policy Journal, John Menadue, distinguished Australian public servant and businessman.

    John, again, it’s one thing to talk about that, but governments, when they change, and we’ve had a change of government recently, very often, as I’m sure you know from personal experience, have the opportunity and do indeed change their advisors and adopt different policies, and one might have expected this to happen.

    Why didn’t we see a change of the guard like we saw a change of government?

    JM: I think this government is timid on almost everything. It was timid from day one on administrative arrangements, departmental arrangements, heads of departments.

    For example, there was no change made to dismantle the Department of Home Affairs with Michael Pezzullo. That should have happened on day one, but it didn’t happen.

    Concerns we’ve had in migration, the role of foreign affairs and intelligence with all those intelligence agencies gathered together in one department has been very bad for Australia.

    Very few changes were made in the leadership of our intelligence agencies, the Office of National Assessments, in ASIO. The same advice has been continued. In almost every area you can look at, the government has been timid, unprepared to take on vested interests, lobbyists, and change departments to make them more attuned to what the government wants to do.

    But the government doesn’t want to upset anyone. And as a result, we’re having a continuation of badly informed ministers and departments that have really not been effectively changed to meet the requirements and needs of, what I thought was a reforming government.

    ML: In that context, AUKUS and the nuclear submarine deal might be perhaps a case in point of the broader issues and points you’re making. How would you characterise the nature of the public policy process and decision behind AUKUS? How were the decisions made and in what manner?

    JM: By political appointees and confidants of Morrison. There’s been no public discussion. There’s been no public statement by Morrison or by Albanese about AUKUS — its history, why we’re doing it.

    It’s been left to briefings of journalists and others. I think it’s disgraceful what’s happened in that area. It’s time the Australian government spelled out to us what it all means, but it’s not going to do it. Because I believe the case is so threadbare that it’s not game to put it to the public test.

    And so we’re continuing in this ludicrous arrangement, this fiscal calamity, which Morrison inflicted on the Albanese government which it hasn’t been game to contest.

    My own view is that frankly, AUKUS will never happen. It is so absurd — the delay, the cost, the failure of submarine construction or the delays in the United States, the problems of the submarine construction and maintenance in the United Kingdom.

    For all those sorts of reasons, I don’t think it’ll really happen. Unfortunately, we’re going to waste a lot of money and a lot of time. I don’t think the Department of Defence could run any major project, certainly not a project like this.

    Defence has been unsuccessful in the frigate and numerous other programmes. Our Department of Defence really is not up to the job and that among other reasons gives me reason to believe, and hope frankly, that AUKUS will collapse under its own stupidity.

    But what I think is of more concern is the real estate, which we are freely leasing to the Americans. We had it first with the Marines in Darwin. We have it also coming now with US B-52 aircraft based out of Tindal in the Northern Territory and the submarine base in Perth, Western Australia.

    These bases are being made available to the United States with very little control by Australia. The government carries on with nonsense about how our sovereignty will be protected.

    In fact, it won’t be protected. If there’s any difficulties, for example, over a war with China over Taiwan, and the Americans are involved, there is no way Americans will consult with us about whether they can use nuclear armed vessels out of Tindal, for example.

    The Americans will insist that Pine Gap continues to operate. So we are locked in through ceding so much of our real estate and the sovereignty that goes with it.

    Penny Wong has been asked about American aircraft out of Tindal, carrying nuclear weapons and she says to us, sorry but the Americans won’t confirm or deny what they do.

    Good heavens, this is our territory. This is our sovereignty. And we won’t even ask the Americans operating out of Tindal, whether they’re carrying nuclear weapons.

    Back in the days of Malcolm Fraser, he made a statement to the Parliament insisting that no vessels or aircraft carrying nuclear weapons or ships carrying nuclear weapons could access Australian ports or operate over Australia without the permission of the Australian government.

    And now Penny Wong says, we won’t ask. You can do what you like. We know the US won’t confirm or deny.

    When it came to the Solomon Islands, a treaty that the Solomons negotiated with China on strategic and defence matters, Penny Wong was very upset about this secret agreement. There should be transparency, she warned.

    But that’s small fry, compared with the fact that the Australian government will allow United States aircraft to operate out of Tindal without the Australian government knowing whether they are carrying nuclear weapons. I think that’s outrageous.

    ML: Notwithstanding many of the very technical and economic and other discussions around the nuclear submarine’s acquisition, it does seem that politically, at least, and not least from the media presentation of our policy position that we’re very clearly signing up with our US allies against contingency attacks on Taiwan that we would be committed to take a part in and we’re also moving very closely, to well the phrase is interoperability, with the US forces and equipment but also personnel too.

    You mentioned earlier, intelligence personnel and I believe there’s a lot of US personnel in the Department of Defence too?

    JM: That’s right. It’s just another example of Americanisation which is reflected in our intelligence agencies, Department of Defence, interchangeability of our military forces, the fusion of our military or particularly our Navy with the United States. It’s all becoming one fused enterprise with the United States.

    And in any difficulties, we would not be able, as far as I can see, to disengage from what the United States is doing. And we would be particularly vulnerable because of the AUKUS submarines. That’s if they ever come to anything. Because the AUKUS submarines, we are told, would operate off the Chinese coast to attack Chinese submarines or somehow provide intelligence for the Americans and for us.

    These submarines will not be nuclear armed, which means that in the event of a conflict, we would have no bargaining or no counter to China. We’d be the weak link in the alliance with the United States.

    China will not be prepared to strike the mainland United States for fear of massive retaliation. We are the weak link with Pine Gap and other real estate that I mentioned. We would be making ourselves much more vulnerable by this association with the United States.

    Those AUKUS submarines will provide no deterrence for us, but make us more vulnerable if a conflict arises in which we are effectively part of the US military operation.

    ML: How would you characterise the mainstream media’s presentation and treatment of these issues?

    JM: The mainstream media is very largely a mouthpiece for Washington propaganda. And that American propaganda is pushed out through the legacy media, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the news agencies, Fox News which in turn are influenced by the military/ business complex which Eisenhower warned us about years ago.

    The power of those groups with the CIA and the influence that they have, means that they overwhelm our media. That’s reflected particularly in The Australian and News Corporation publications.

    I don’t know how some of those journalists can hold their heads. They’ve been on the drip feed of America for so long. They cannot see a world that is not dominated and led by the United States.

    I’m hoping that over time, Pearls and Irritations and other independent media will grow and provide a more balanced view about Australia’s role in our region and in our own development.

    We need to keep good relations with the United States. They’re an important player, but I think that we are unnecessarily risking our future by throwing our lot almost entirely in with the United States.

    Minister for Defence, Richard Marles is leading the Americanisation of our military. I think Penny Wong is to some extent trying to pull him back. But unfortunately so much of the leadership of Australia in defence, in the media, is part and parcel of the mistaken United States view of the world.

    ML: What sort of voices are we not hearing in the media or in Australia on this question?

    JM: It’s not going to change, Michael. I can’t see it changing with Lachlan Murdoch in charge. I think it’s getting worse, if possible, within News Corporation. It’s a very, very difficult and desperate situation where we’re being served so poorly.

    ML: Is there a strong independent media and potential for voices through independent media in Australia?

    JM: No, we haven’t got one. The best hope at the side, of course, is the ABC and SBS public broadcasters, but they’ve been seduced as well by all things American.

    We’ve seen that particularly in recent months over the conflict in Gaza. The ABC and SBS heavily favour Israel. It is shameful.

    They’re still the best hope of the side, but they need more money. They’re getting a little bit more from the government, but I think they are sadly lacking in leadership and proper understanding of what the role of a public broadcaster should be.

    I don’t think there’s a quick answer to any of this. And I hope that we can extricate ourselves without too much damage in the future. Our media has a great responsibility and must be held responsible for the damage that it is causing in Australia.

    ML: Well, look, thank you very much, John Menadue, for joining us on Radio Northern Beaches and on the Pearls and Irritations podcast. John Menadue, publisher, founder, editor-in-chief of, for the last 13 years, the public policy journal Pearls and Irritations. We’ve been discussing the role of the mainstream media, independent media, in the public policy processes too in Australia, and particularly in the context of international relations and in this case our relationships with the US and China.

    Thank you so much John for taking the time and for sharing your thoughts with us here today. Thanks for joining us John.

    JM: Thank you. Let’s hope for better days.

    John Menadue, founder and publisher of  Pearls and Irritations public policy journal has had a senior professional career in the media, public service and airlines. In 1985, he was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for public service. In 2009, he received the Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of Adelaide in recognition of his significant and lifelong contribution to Australian society. This transcript of the Pearls and Irritations podcast on 10 August 2024 is republished with permission. 

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.