Category: indonesia

  • By Dio Suhenda in Jakarta

    More than a month after the omicron variant was first discovered in Indonesia, the highly transmissible but less fatal variant has claimed its first fatality amid a surge in covid-19 cases, prompting calls for the government to speed up vaccination of the elderly.

    Health Ministry spokesperson Siti Nadia Tarmizi told The Jakarta Post yesterday that the country’s first two omicron-related deaths were a 64-year-old man and a 54-year-old woman with “severe comorbidities”.

    The man, Tarmizi said, was a local transmission case and died in Sari Asih Hospital in Ciputat, on the outskirts of Jakarta, while the woman was an imported case.

    She recently traveled to the Netherlands and was believed to have contracted the virus there before testing positive upon returning to Indonesia.

    She died at the Sulianti Saroso Infectious Diseases Hospital in North Jakarta.

    Dio Suhenda is a reporter for The Jakarta Post.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • At the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow this November Indonesia pledged to completely phase out its coal use by 2056. Coal is a primary resource in Indonesia’s energy sector, generating for 65% of electricity in 2029. Amid recession driven by the coronavirus pandemic, by October this year Indonesia had reaped almost 50 trillion rupiah from the mining sector, 80% of which was contributed by coal. This amount was the biggest in a decade. The essential benefits, however, are not directly shared by Indonesia’s regional residents, particularly in Sumatra, due to their daily lives being adversely impacted by coal businesses.

    As Indonesia’s second coal-richest region after Kalimantan, Sumatra is both blessed and cursed by the black gold. On the one hand, coal generates a huge amount of money for some of its provinces. But on the other hand, residents suffer from the impact of rampant coal business operating throughout the island. In Jambi, where coal mines are scattered across the province, thousands of overloaded coal trucks using by the main road each day have infuriated locals. The trucks cause traffic congestions for kilometres, and those living along the main road have no option but to breathe dust and thick diesel fumes every single day. The plight caused by coal trucks does not end there. Coal trucks always swarm petrol stations, not only causing traffic jams, but also impeding residents’ access. This also leads to dark business, with some merchants hoarding diesel fuel just to be resold to coal truck drivers. Thus, it is common to see almost all of Jambi’s petrol stations run out of diesel fuel just a matter of hours after a refill.

    What makes residents more furious is that coal truck drivers, some of whom are reckless, inexperienced and unlicensed, regularly cause traffic accidents which claim dozens of lives. In the three years prior to 2020 there were over 30 residents killed, and in 2021 alone the number reached 34. In addition, some truck drivers often secretly use community roads, pushing locals to take unilateral, punitive measures, from blockading roads to setting coal trucks on fire.

    The catastrophes partly result from an ambiguous regulation concerning coal truck road access. Based on the revised Minerba Law No. 3 of 2020, coal mining companies are required to use special roads for transporting their commodity, yet the law also states that the companies are not restricted from public roads. This loophole is advantageous for mining companies, granting them freedom from the obligation to construct their own roads. When the companies do show their willingness to build new roads, the potential consequences are severe. A road construction granted by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to Marga Bara Jaya Corporation in an area bordering Jambi and South Sumatra, for instance, allows the company to build a 88-kilometer road, 60 meters wide, through the protected Harapan forest. Not only that, the concession gives the company control of 424 hectares of the pristine forest.

    This road scheme will likely worsen the already intense conflicts between humans and wild animals, especially tigers, in both provinces. In 2019, there were 7 tiger attacks reported in south Sumatra, killing 5 residents and injuring 2 others. In Jambi, this year alone, tigers have killed several villagers, eaten livestock, and terrorized villages.

    With easier access illegal settlers, who have flocked to the Harapan forest area for years, will also follow further worsening deforestation. As a consequence Jambi’s forest people (the Suku Anak Dalam) will be pushed further out of the forest  for settlement and livelihoods. With the forest gone, the Suku Anak Dalam are no longer able to hunt wild boars or gather forest products to sell. Consequently they ransack village crops, which creates tensions and deadly conflicts with locals.

    Road-related problems caused by coal trucks also persist in other parts of Sumatra. Yet the biggest hurdles faced by residents of Aceh, West Sumatra, Bengkulu, and South Sumatra, to name a few, originate from coal power plants which result in multidimensional pollution as well as economic hardship. Respiratory and other diseases are also affecting residents as a direct impact of breathing coal ashes for a long time. For all these reasons, many residents have to flee their homes for good. Yet for others staying is the only option because moving away is just too costly.

    Environmental degradation in Indonesia: lessons from Jambi

    Native oligarchs and unscrupulous security apparatuses from the police to the military continue to exploit natural resources with ease and impunity.

    The coal curse affecting Sumatra’s residents is a matter of unhealthy politics. The coal sector is strongly linked to national and regional oligarchs, and coal businesses often play a role as financiers for political candidates. This clientelism has helped boost concession permits in the coal business, from just 750 in 2001 to 10.900 at present. The Ministry for Energy and Mineral Resources declared over 1000 of these  President Joko Widodo revoked 2,078 mineral and coal mining business permits. The clientelist nature is also weakening local governments’ bargaining power vis-à-vis coal mine bosses. Far from punishing companies for their misconduct, invitations to discuss pay rises for their underpaid truck drivers and road construction workers are repeatedly ignored. The same story applies to environmental crime perpetrated by coal mining companies, which occur with ease under a clientelist relationship between local leaders and coal oligarchs.

    The revised Minerba Law No. 3 of 2020 combined with the controversial, conditionally unconstitutional Omnibus Law will make matters worse for Sumatra’s residents and business more profitable with less accountability for coal mining oligarchs. The revised Minerba Law guarantees a contract extension to mining companies, even if they are proven not to exercise their responsibility to safeguard the environment. The law also recentralises mining industries, paving the way for national oligarchs to flex their muscles in the mining business as they did in the Suharto years. Locals opposing or even “bothering” mining activities in their regions they can be convicted or fined under the law. As for the Omnibus Law, it guarantees a 0% of production levy to companies that can increase the added value of coal.

    Despite the phase out and phase down debate over the use of coal at the COP26, the conference has at least set a fixed year for Indonesia to end its coal dependency. Yet, until 2056 coal will likely remain a curse rather than a blessing for many in Sumatra.

    The post In Indonesia, Sumatra’s coal brings more harm than good appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • Southeast Asia is especially exposed to the deluge of consequences that climate change brings. The region is already experiencing unnatural weather patterns, as devastating floods in Malaysia and the Philippines show. Yet, perhaps insufficiently recognised and analysed is how, beyond environmental and economic wreckage, climate change will create upheavals in the geopolitical order, producing new winners and losers. This emerging geopolitical constellation will throw up important questions for policymakers.

    Within Southeast Asia, the country that needs to consider the issue most deeply is fossil-fuel rich Indonesia. As scholars on the topic note, currently those that stand to lose are those who continue to bet on fossil-fuels and are slow to transition their economies, especially those who are fossil-fuel rich and dependent on resource mining. Despite some indications of progress, Indonesia’s most recent climate action flatters to deceive.

    The recently announced carbon tax of USD$2 per ton of CO2 over a set limit is around 40 times less than the amount recommended by established institutions like the IMF. Indonesia’s performance at COP26 was also underwhelming, with its support for the Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement conspicuously watered-down. Not only did it decline to support the clause to stop issuance of new permits for coal generation projects, it stopped short of committing to tackling coal, noting that it would merely “consider” going along with the coal phase out, with the additional condition of receiving international aid—a subject its leaders surely know is a major sticking point and is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon. Indonesia then walked back its pledge to end deforestation by 2030, much to the chagrin of both international and domestic actors.

    Indonesia’s long-term position in the global political economy will hinge on whether it decides to stubbornly hold on to fraying systems and merely make half-hearted attempts to address climate change, or if it boldly embarks on extensive reforms to its presently fossil fuel-dependent economy. In particular, much depends on whether it can rapidly phase out coal and take serious advantage of its potential in renewable energies, positioning itself as a provider of a resource with growing—instead of declining—strategic significance.

    Exporting renewable energy, securing geo-economic strength

    Thus far, the vast potential of renewables in Indonesia has been critically underutilised. If fully tapped, its renewable energy sources could generate more than six times its energy needs as measured in 2020 . This wastes a reservoir of potential geopolitical power; developing and exporting renewable energy will allow Indonesia maximum geopolitical gains. This entails eventually developing renewable energy beyond levels of domestic necessity, and channelling excess amounts for export to neighbouring countries that do not have the same capabilities for clean energy production. Developing excess energy is challenging but perhaps necessary to stave off discontent arising from economic nationalism—a long-standing sentiment in Indonesia rooted in its colonial experience. The geopolitical benefits of this would mostly come in the medium-term, but in the meantime, a lower target of credibly signalling intent would allow give neighbouring states a stake in Indonesia’s renewable energy development. This in turn should pave the way for friendlier relations, increased investments, and in some cases the transfer of expertise.

    Significantly, with ramped up renewable energy capabilities, Indonesia would hold the key to development of an ASEAN or Australian-Asian Power Grid. Energy sharing arrangements like these are significant not only for its increased gains in energy efficiency, but also build greater energy security for the region as a whole. Indonesia also plays a key role in the development of this grid because of its geographic position near Australia. Any link between Australia and Southeast Asia, for example recent arrangements by the private company Sun Cable to transport large amounts of solar energy from Australia’s Northern Territory to Singapore, will likely have to run through Indonesia. Indonesia therefore plays the de facto role as coordinator of energy relations with Australia, the latter of which has lofty aspirations to be a clean energy superpower, exporting green hydrogen and key materials necessary for green technologies.

    Further geopolitical significance is exhibited if we understand these dynamics in the context of a rising China. Instead of looking towards Australia, a possible other alternative for ASEAN is to lean on hydropower arrangements from its North, looking at the links between China and Indochinese states like Laos and Myanmar. China, moreover, presently holds the lead in the development of key technologies like solar panels.

    If groupings like the QUAD intend to check the rise of Chinese influence in ASEAN, one way of doing so is to establish clean energy supply chains to break Chinese monopoly. If the QUAD wants to include ASEAN in this supply chain, Indonesia will be the obvious contact point, not only because of its geographical location, but also because of the presence of critical minerals like nickel. Firmly establishing itself as a key node in global supply chains allows Indonesia to be in a stronger position to produce and install clean energy technologies domestically—an area in which it currently lags behind contemporaries like Vietnam. The geopolitical implication would be to ensure that the focal point of Southeast Asian renewable energy supplies is not only the Mekong Delta, but also the Indian Ocean.

    Coal not viable in long-term

    The flipside of cultivating renewable energy is reducing dependence on fossil fuels. Coal plays a dual role in Indonesia’s economy—it is domestically consumed, accounting for over 60 percent of its energy, and as of December 2021, Indonesia is currently the world’s biggest exporter of coal. Coal remains both a key source of revenue as well as a source of geopolitical relevance; major powers like China and India have much greater reason to develop friendly relations with Indonesia to ensure access to this strategic resource.

    Recent trends might give ammunition to sceptics who advocate for a more conservative approach, retaining the large subsidies that underpin coal’s place in Indonesian life. Global demand for coal has picked up in the global pandemic recovery phase, and has in fact soared after global price shocks to natural gas. Furthermore, Chinese demand for Indonesian coal has greatly increased after the souring of Sino-Australian relations disrupted its energy trade. This might seem to vindicate those who think that a coal phase-out is premature.

    The next decade or so will certainly see periodic episodes where fossil fuels will be sought, and producers will certainly benefit during these phases. As Bordoff and O’Sullivan noted in Foreign Affairs magazine, the green transition will not be a smooth process but instead one of heavy experimentation. Yet, observers should resist seduction and not mistake the short-termism of this trend for a strategy with long-term viability. Ultimately, further investment in coal will only increase the amount of stranded assets. An academic study in the journal Nature calculated that Indonesia stands to lose USD$293 billion if it continues on its current path. External demand for Indonesian coal will likely taper off, and the geopolitical relevance of the resource will accordingly recede.

    It is also important to clarify misunderstandings about China’s trajectory, especially given it remains the largest consumer of fossil fuels. As Hsu pointed out in the New York Times, the Chinese turn to coal after the recent natural gas price shock is, contrary to some analyses, not a signal of their long-term direction. In fact, the Chinese reaction has been to double down on their resolve take environmental leadership, and transition quickly to renewable energy in order to ensure energy security. The more important episode that accurately signals Chinese intentions is perhaps the announcement to end funding for new coal plants.

    Upsurge in demand for Indonesian coal, then, is a temporary and fleeting event, not a long-term strategy. This suggests that recent attempts to transition away from coal, like the energy ministry’s Regulation No.26/2021 (RUPTL) should be ramped up, not abandoned.

    Trends in climate politics scholarship

    Merely putting forward policy suggestions for Indonesia or the benefits that they will bring is potentially impotent exercise if one does not bring in a complementary analysis on how to work towards a political situation where these pursuits can be achieved. On this point, recent scholarship on the drivers of climate action could be instructive.

    Nationalist rhetoric is impeding climate action in Indonesia

    Indonesia’s environmental policies are at odds with the rhetoric around palm oil production and Indonesians are not equipped with enough information to understand the risks of a changing climate.

    Past arguments have suggested that the reticence of countries like Indonesia to take strong climate action is due to a collective action problem, where countries will only pursue climate action when it is assured that others would do so robustly as well. Forging out on its own would mean being a “sucker”, sacrificing while others benefit. This ostensibly explains the status quo of slow climate action on a global level, and suggests that the solution lies in having greater global dialogue on the issue through international fora like COP. In these fora, states can attain mutual assurance of climate action and feel more secure that they are not pursuing action alone. This global dimension might also explain Indonesia’s reticence in accelerating its green transition as a response to the failure of developed nations to uphold their end of the bargain and providing the adequate climate finance for developing countries like Indonesia—a call that President Jokowi has repeatedly made.

    These arguments, while insightful in many ways, are in the process of being overturned. Scholars Aklin and Mildenberger, for example, have argued convincingly that collective action problem models are inadequate, and that the strength of a country’s climate action is ultimately determined by distributive conflict, or the balance of domestic coalitions. As the saying goes, foreign policy begins at home. This argument confounds the notion of an objective “national interest” implicitly built into prior arguments, where a right course of action or interest can be ascertained without reference to the power differentials within a given society. Their arguments have been echoed by other key scholars working in this field, and this line of inquiry is maybe presently the most dynamic within climate politics scholarship.

    Activists call for jobs and just transition to renewable energy in Indonesia. By 350.org on Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

    If their research is to be taken seriously, it dictates that to move the needle on climate action, greater support should be given to local groups actively calling for greater decarbonisation, including burgeoning grassroots and youth movements. Climate activism has often been dismissed as a nuisance or even counterproductive, but this is not borne out by rigorous research. A January 2021 study found that familiarity with key climate activists like Greta Thunberg increased the likelihood that others would be willing to take collective action on climate change. Empowering the numerous grassroots and youth movements that have popped up in Indonesia over the past few years would recalibrate calculations over the distribution of gains of stronger climate policy. Furthermore, equipping activism with a geopolitical angle might prove useful—grassroots activists could be seen to not just be fighting for the environment, but also to ensure the nation’s geopolitical future is on steady ground. This allows activists to find unlikely partners and build coalitions with those within the foreign policy or security establishment.

    Recent accounts suggesting that Indonesia is surging ahead with the development of renewable energy against and despite the interests of its powerful coal lobby are at best premature, and at worst misleading. Indonesia’s coal industry is politically highly influential and its interests deeply embedded in connected industries. It would be imprudent to discount its ability to wield its influence to disrupt any progress or read recent policies as admissions of its defeat. Much more has to be done on the climate front in Indonesia, not only to stem environmental damage, but also the relatively more Machiavellian reason of securing a strong position in the emerging geopolitical order.

    The post Indonesia’s geopolitical future needs robust climate action appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • This event was hosted by the ANU Indonesia Institute. It was designed for all researchers, but especially postgraduate students who are struggling with designing and implementing research options in Indonesia whilst travel to the country is limited (for researchers from beyond Indonesia) and conducting face-to-face interactions is greatly restricted (for researchers in Indonesia).

    How are researchers adapting to these challenges?

    What substitute methods are they using?

    How effective are online interviews, social media research and similar alternatives?

    What are the ethical implications of moving research online or trying to work with research assistants?

    Can ethnographic and qualitative research survive in an era of COVID-19?

    A panel of speakers from the ANU and beyond, including both senior researchers and PhD students, address these and similar issues.

    SPEAKERS – Dr. Amalinda Savirani, Universitas Gadjah Mada – Assoc. Prof. John McCarthy, ANU – Ms Lila Sari, ANU – Dr Eva Nisa ANU

    The post Researching in Indonesia without fieldwork in the age of COVID appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) plans to open a government branch office in the neighbouring Papua New Guinean capital of Port Moresby along with diplomacy offices to be based in Europe and the United Kingdom.

    In a New Year message from interim president Benny Wenda, he has confirmed a strategic office reshuffle around the world.

    “The headquarters will be based inside West Papua, and the international office in Port Vila,” he said in the statement.

    “We are opening a government branch in Port Moresby, and our diplomatic coordination offices will be based in the UK and Europe.

    “This is another step in our long road to reclaiming the sovereignty stolen from us by Indonesia in 1963.

    “With the formation of our constitution, provisional government, cabinet and Green State Vision, all Indonesian laws in West Papua are over.”

    Wenda said the Indonesian presence was “totally illegal, and totally redundant”.

    “With our clandestine government departments operating within our borders, all West Papuans and Indonesian migrants working under our jurisdiction are now governed by the ULMWP,” said Wenda.

    Presidential demands
    The West Papua military wing and any organisation affiliated to the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation, the West Papua National Parliament, or the Federal Republic of West Papua — the three constituent organisations within the ULMWP — were automatically considered part of the provisional government.

    “Everyone must respect our constitution, whether you are inside West Papua or part of our international solidarity networks. The world must trust us and our constitution — we want peace for all in the region and internationally, and to democratically govern ourselves,” Wenda said.

    “I encourage all NGOs, churches and religious leaders, every West Papuan inside and in exile, to unite and pray for the provisional government. Support everyone within the government working to end our long suffering and complete our 60 year struggle.”

    Wenda said the demands to the Indonesian President in 2022 remained those that had been first issued during the West Papua Uprising in 2019:

    1. Hold a referendum on West Papuan independence;
    2. Allow international supervision of any referendum;
    3. Allow the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights into West Papua in accordance with the demand of 84 UN member states;
    4. Withdraw all troops from West Papua, including the 21,000 additional troops deployed since December 2018, and end the Indonesian military’s illegal war;
    5. Release all political prisoners, including Victor Yeimo and the “Abepura Eight”; and
    6. Allow all international journalists and human rights, humanitarian and monitoring groups into West Papua to visit internally-displaced people in Nduga, Puncak, Intan Jaya, Oksibil, Maybrat and elsewhere.

    “In 2022, we will redouble all efforts in our long struggle for the liberation of our nation,” Wenda said.

    “We will peacefully bring an end to this bloodshed.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    PRP conference Papua
    A Papuan People’s Petition conference. Image: PKP

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Regional tensions have forced the pace for regional air forces to buy new capability or update legacy platforms. The increasing prospects of a peer-on-peer conflict among Asia Pacific armed forces, particularly in East Asia, are steadily rising as China’s increasingly belligerent behaviour ramps-up concern within the immediate region as well as further afield. Amid heightened […]

    The post Asian Air Force Modernisation appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • This article is available in English at the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs.

    Dengan dihilangkannya kata “penghapusan” dari RUU kekerasan seksual di Indonesia, terlihat bahwa bangsa ini tidak lagi berusaha untuk menghentikan kekerasan seksual melainkan hanya sekadar menghukumnya saja.

    Meskipun dalam beberapa dekade sudah ada sedikit kemajuan keragaman gender dan seksualitas di Indonesia, namun aksi nyata masih terbatas. Bersamaan dengan RUU Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual (RUU PKS) yang tidak lagi berfokus pada pencegahan kekerasan seksual, komitmen bangsa terhadap warganya patut dipertanyakan.

    ****
    RUU Indonesia untuk menghapuskan kekerasan seksual masih terus terbengkalai. RUU Penghapusan Kekerasan Seksual (PKS) pertama kali diusulkan pada tahun 2016, dan meskipun telah mengalami banyak perubahan yang diperdebatkan-paling baru di tahun 2021- masih belum ada kepastian mengenai kapan RUU tersebut akan disahkan.

    Dalam naskah terbarunya, RUU yang telah mengalami pengurangan dari sembilan menjadi empat bentuk kekerasan seksual. Ini menandakan dengan jelas kegagalan pemerintah dan jajaran pengadilan Indonesia dalam mengambil sikap etis yang efektif tentang kekerasan seksual terhadap warga negaranya sendiri, khususnya terhadap perempuan dan anggota komunitas LGBTQI+. Lima bentuk kekerasan seksual yang dihapuskan di antaranya kawin paksa, aborsi paksa, pelacuran paksa, perbudakan seksual dan penyiksaan seksual.

    Selain itu, RUU yang berganti nama menjadi RUU Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual dengan tegas menandakan bahwa kata ‘penghapusan’ tak lagi penting. Memasuki masa jabatan keduanya, Presiden Joko Widodo harus segera mengambil tindakan karena tingkat kekerasan seksual dan domestik kian meningkat di masa pandemi.

    Ketika Indonesia mulai menganut paham demokrasi pada tahun 1998 setelah peristiwa dilengserkannya pemimpin otoriter, Presiden Suharto, ada banyak harapan untuk mewujudkan kesetaraan gender dan seksualitas.

    Ada sejumlah perubahan yang sekarang sudah mulai berlaku seperti pembentukan Komnas Perempuan. Tahun-tahun awal demokrasi Indonesia merupakan masa di mana bangsa membangun fondasi yang kokoh bagi seluruh warganya. Bahkan, Indonesia membangun landasan ini di atas sejarah yang kerap kali secara mengejutkan mendukung pluralitas gender dan seksualitas.

    Sejarah yang kaya akan keragaman gender dan seksualitas

    Sama seperti negara lainnya, Indonesia memiliki masa lalu yang kompleks terkait gender dan keragaman seksual, namun ada bukti bahwa masyarakat terkadang mendukung hal ini. Salah satu contoh yang menarik perhatian dunia (adalah lewat sandiwara Robert Wilson berjudul La Galigo) yang berasal dari Sulawesi Selatan.

    Terdapat bukti tertulis dari misionaris yang melakukan perjalan ke Sulawesi Selatan pada tahun 1500-an yang menceritakan tentang bissu, pemimpin spiritual androgini yang memperoleh kekuatan dengan cara menggabungkan unsur-unsur perempuan/laki-laki/maskulin/feminin.

    Bissu adalah komunitas tokoh spiritual yang telah lama berperan di Sulawesi Selatan, termasuk dalam memfasilitasi pernikahan kerajaan. Jauh dari apa yang disebut sebagai pengadopsian budaya barat, dukungan, inklusivitas gender dan keragaman seksualitas seperti itu sudah ada sebelum Westernisasi skala besar terjadi. Bahkan, para misionaris Eropa lah yang mencaci maki pemegang kekuasaan di Sulawesi Selatan karena menghormati pemimpin spiritual bissu yang berbeda secara gender dan seksualitas.

    Salahkan budaya barat

    Terlepas dari sejarah ini, perdebatan kontemporer yang dominan di Indonesia memposisikan keragaman gender dan seksualitas sebagai hasil impor asing yang tidak diinginkan. Penempatan ekspresi gender atau seksualitas di luar standar cis-heteronormatif inilah yang menghambat pengesahan RUU Penghapusan Kekerasan Seksual. Orang-orang seperti tokoh agama konservatif dan beberapa politisi yang menentang RUU ini mengatakan bahwa jika RUU ini disahkan, akan sulit menghentikan orang Indonesia dari berhubungan seks dengan siapa pun yang mereka suka.

    Pemikiran sesat ini juga tercermin dalam pelaksanaan pendidikan seksualitas komprehensif yang mencakup unsur konsensual dan SOGIESC (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Expression, Sex Characteristics).

    Misalnya, ada persepsi yang salah bahwa jika kita mengajarkan konsep konsensual seks kepada anak-anak kita, artinya kita mendorong kaum muda untuk berhubungan seks, sedangkan mengajarkan SOGIESC berarti mengubah orientasi seksual dan identitas gender seseorang. Pola pikir konservatif ini bertentangan dengan fakta bahwa pendidikan seksualitas komprehensif justru melindungi anak dari kekerasan seksual.

    Tingginya tingkat kekerasan berbasis gender

    Walaupun temuan utama dari survei Violence Against Women (Kekerasan Terhadap Perempuan) di Jakarta mengungkapkan bahwa sekitar satu dari tiga wanita dengan rentang usia 15 hingga 64 tahun tercatat pernah mengalami berbagai bentuk kekerasan dalam hidup mereka, namun tindak lanjut dari rancangan undang-undang ini tetap dihentikan.

    Meskipun data resmi seputar kekerasan terhadap populasi LGBTQI+ tidak mencukupi, laporan dari Human Right Watch mencatat adanya tingkat kekerasan yang mengkhawatirkan dalam lingkup orientasi seksual dan identitas gender, dimulai dari penggerebekan polisi yang sistematis hingga ditelanjangi, diperkosa dan dibakar hidup-hidup.

    Sementara situasinya suram, muncul beberapa cerita yang membawa harapan. Misalnya, baru-baru ini BBC memuat sebuah berita yang menampilkan Amara Alfikar, seorang trans pria yang juga merupakan tokoh agama asal Indonesia.

    Kisah Amar Alfikar menginspirasi banyak hal, terutama karena ia menunjukkan bagaimana Islam, yang sering kali disamarkan sebagai lawan dari keragaman gender dan seksualitas, mengakomodasikan keberagaman tersebut.

    Bahkan, ketika para misionaris Portugis datang ke Sulawesi Selatan pada abad ke-16 berniat untuk mengubah kepercayaan penduduk setempat menjadi Kristen, bissu menyarankan para bangsawan untuk menerima tawaran konversi agama dari utusan Muslim yang ada di sana pada waktu yang sama. Bissu mengatakan bahwa dalam Islam, mereka bisa melihat tempat bagi diri mereka sendiri yang tidak bisa mereka lihat dalam bentuk kekristenan yang dihadirkan. Tentu saja alasan-alasan lain ikut berperan dalam masyarakat di Sulawesi Utara yang menerima Islam sebagai keyakinan mereka, dan menolak Kristen. Namun, patut dicatat bahwa orang Portugis menyebut bissu sebagai penghalang utama misi mereka.

    Penguatan konservatisme agama dan politik, yang didasarkan pada ideologi seksis, homofobia, dan transfobia yang kuat membuat RUU Kriminalisasi Kekerasan Seksual di Indonesia sulit untuk  disahkan. Dalam berbagai hal, sungguh menggembirakan melihat keberagaman mampu bertahan dari tekanan pandemi. COVID-19 telah memberikan dampak yang merugikan dan mematikan bagi perempuan dan komunitas LGBTQI+ di Indonesia.

    Akses rutin layanan kesehatan seksual dan reproduksi, seperti kontrasepsi hormonal, pengobatan antiretroviral (ARV) kondom dan program untuk menjangkau populasi rentan, mengalami pengurangan yang signifikan karena sumber daya yang ada dialihkan untuk menangani COVID-19.

    Ketika orang-orang berkunjung ke fasilitas kesehatan untuk mendapatkan perawatan dan vaksinasi COVID 19, banyak yang mengalami dilema dalam mengungkapkan kondisi kesehatan yang mendasarinya, seperti misalnya HIV, yang disebabkan oleh ketakutan akan ditolak karena memiliki status kesehatan yang khusus. Target kekerasan yang paling rentan, yaitu perempuan transgender, memiliki akses terbatas ke perawatan kesehatan karena diskriminasi yang mencolok, dan kurangnya akses ke dokumentasi hukum dikarenakan beberapa dari mereka dipaksa untuk meninggalkan rumah pada usia muda.

    Kekurangan RUU

    Awalnya diusulkan pada 26 Januari 2016, RUU Penghapusan Kekerasan Seksual (RUU PKS) diusulkan untuk membantu melindungi warga negara Indonesia dari kekerasan seksual. RUU PKS juga awalnya bertujuan untuk mencegah kekerasan seksual dan memberikan lebih banyak hak kepada penyintas, termasuk penyintas perkosaan dalam perkawinan. Komnas Perempuan dan Forum Penyedia Layanan merupakan pengusul awal RUU PKS. Namun sejak tahun 2016, RUU ini hanya mendekam di pengadilan. Pada tahun 2020, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) menghentikan pembahasannya dengan alasan “perkara sulit.”

    RUU versi Agustus 2021 memiliki beberapa perbedaan dari RUU aslinya. Misalnya, sekarang hanya terdapat lima bentuk kekerasan seksual yang diakui, bukan sembilan sebagaimana sebelumnya. Kelima bentuk tersebut adalah: Pelecehan Seksual (Pasal 2), Pemaksaan Kontrasepsi (Pasal 3), Pemaksaan Hubungan Seksual (Pasal 4), Eksploitasi Seksual (Pasal 5), dan tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual yang disertai dengan tindak pidana lainnya (Pasal 6). Sungguh tragis bahwa fokusnya kini murni pada penuntutan tindakan kriminal dan pada tingkat mana pun tidak difokuskan pada pemberantasan kekerasan seksual sejak awal.

    A survivor-centred Sexual Violence Bill in Indonesia?

    A survivor-centred perspective can transform the safety of women in society by pivoting on principles of justice and fairness.

    Ada beberapa kekurangan dari RUU tersebut. Misalnya, RUU yang direvisi menawarkan sangat sedikit perlindungan bagi penyintas kekerasan seksual. Aparat penegak hukum hanya akan berbuat seadanya untuk mendukung para korban, dan ini hanya akan memperburuk keadaan dari para korban. RUU yang direvisi juga hanya memberikan sedikit dukungan kepada kementerian atau lembaga untuk melindungi para penyintas. Pemerintah tidak dimandatkan untuk mendukung korban dan tidak ada peraturan yang memaksa mereka untuk mendukung korban. Selain itu, RUU yang direvisi tidak mewajibkan layanan seperti Pusat Layanan Terpadu untuk mendukung para korban.

    Peran layanan perlindungan seperti paralegal untuk membantu korban telah dihapus. RUU yang direvisi tidak mendukung kepentingan dan kebutuhan khusus dari para korban penyandang disabilitas. Dengan demikian, tidak ada dukungan untuk merekrut juru bahasa isyarat atau bantuan psikologis. Terakhir, RUU yang direvisi tidak mengatur kekerasan gender berbasis online.

    Namun demikian, sangat penting diingat bahwa pemerintah Indonesia harus mengabaikan suara-suara yang berbeda dan menyadari urgensi untuk mengesahkan RUU ini, meskipun dalam versi yang lebih lunak dari RUU ini hanya menawarkan sedikit perlindungan dari kekerasan seksual. Pengesahannya akan menjadi langkah pertama untuk memastikan keselamatan warga di negara mereka sendiri.

    Terjemahan oleh:

    • Putri Nurul A’la – Magister Interpreting dan Translation di Monash University, Australia.
    • Ashanti Dayani Ajengpitaloka -Sarjana Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Negeri Semarang, Jawa Tengah, Indonesia.
    • Silvia Cristine Hasianta Manurung – Mahasiswa Pascasarjana di Universitas Gajah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.

    The post Pertanyakan niat: pemerintah Indonesia tak berkomitmen hapuskan kekerasan seksual appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • 3 Mins Read U.K. tempeh brand Better Nature has rebranded across its entire product range. The move comes ahead of Veganuary 2022. New packaging has been designed to highlight the benefits of tempeh as a superfood, not a meat alternative. The revamped livery goes live on January 1, 2022. Alongside the rebranding, Better Nature is launching three new […]

    The post Better Nature Unveils Company-Wide Tempeh Rebrand and 1000 Days Fund Charity Partnership appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • By Kizzy Kalsakau and Jason Abel in Port Vila

    The interim President of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) provisional government, Benny Wenda, has condemned Indonesia for the arrest and torture of eight students, and appeals to Melanesian countries to support their plea.

    The eight West Papuan students were arrested by Indonesian police for peacefully demonstrating with banners and hand-painted Morning Star flags in Jayapura, capital of the Indonesian-ruled province of Papua, on 1 December 2021.

    They have been charged with treason, and may face 25 years in prison.

    In an interview with 96.3 Buzz FM, Wenda said that this happened when West Papua celebrated its 60th year anniversary, which is significant for all West Papuans.

    “The event is celebrated globally. Official celebrations took place in Netherlands, in United Kingdom, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu,” he said.

    “The university students peacefully raised their flags, marched and chanted withdrawal of the military and demanded self-determination.

    “Just last month, I asked the Indonesian government to allow my people to express themselves because we always respect their independence on August 17 annually,” Wenda said.

    ‘Call for respect and release’
    “We have called for respect and are not happy with this arrest.

    “We are also asking the international community to monitor the situation.”

    Amnesty Indonesia has already called for the immediate release of the students. These students have been fed up with the military operations, internal displacements, murders and bombings.

    Wenda also said that recently an elderly woman, Paulina Imbumar, who leads prayers, was arrested, and a request had been sent to the police station to release her.

    The chair of the Vanuatu West Papua Association, Job Dalesa, said it was very sad to hear such actions taken.

    He added that it was an independent human rights flag and the students were portraying their stand.

    Dalesa called on the people of Vanuatu to unite in prayer for the people of West Papua.

    “We will appeal to Indonesia to stop such actions,” he said.

    The Vanuatu Daily Post contacted the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) headquarters in Port Vila for comments on the situation. However, there was no immediate response.

    Kizzy Kalsakau and Jason Abel are Vanuatu Daily Post reporters. Republished with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Yance Agapa in Jayapura

    Indonesia has strongly criticised the United Nations in response to cases of human rights violations in Papua being cited in the UN’s 2021 annual report.

    “Unfortunately the report neglects to highlight human rights violations happening in advanced countries, such as cases of Islamaphobia, racism and discrimination as well as hate speech,” said Indonesian Foreign Affairs Ministry spokesperson Teuku Faizasyah.

    According to Faizasyah, almost 32 of the countries reported on were developing countries.

    Nevertheless, he said, Indonesia condemned all forms of intimidation and violence which target human rights activists.

    “Indonesia does not give space to the practice of reprisals against human rights activists as alleged and everything is based on a consideration of the legal stipulations,” said Faizasyah.

    Speaking separately last Wednesday, Mary Lawlor, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, warned Indonesia that it must stop threats, intimidation and violence against human rights defenders in West Papua.

    Lawlor cited Veronica Koman, a human rights and minority rights lawyer who is in self-exile in Australia.

    Koman still facing threats
    She said that Koman was still facing censure and threats from Indonesia and its proxies who accused her of incitement, spreading fake news and racially based hate speech, spreading information aimed at creating ethnic and separatist hatred, and efforts to separate Papua from the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI).

    These accusations are believed to be directed at Koman in reprisal for her work advocating human rights in West Papua.

    “I am very concerned with the use of threats, intimidation and acts of reprisal against Veronica Koman and her family, which seek to undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the legitimate work of human rights lawyers,” said Lawlor.

    Previously, UN Secretary-General António Manuel de Oliveira Guterres cited Indonesia as one of 45 the countries committing violence and intimidation against human rights activists.

    This was included in a report by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OCHCR) which cited Indonesia over violence and intimidation in Papua.

    On 26 June 2020, the OCHCR also highlighted the criminalisation and intimidation of human rights activists in the provinces of Papua and West Papua.

    One of the focuses was alleged intimidation against Wensislus Fatubun, an activist and human rights lawyer for the Papua People’s Assembly.

    “He has routinely prepared witness documents, and analysis about human rights issues in West Papua for the UN. Wens Fatubun has worked with the special rapporteur on healthcare issues in Papua during visits,” said Guterres.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Indonesia Kritik PBB Soal HAM Papua”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • SPECIAL REPORT: By Johnny Blades, RNZ Pacific journalist

    Armed conflict in West Papua continues to claim lives, displace tens of thousands of people and cause resentment at Indonesian rule.

    But despite ongoing calls for help, neighbouring countries in the Pacific Islands region remain largely silent and ineffectual in their response.

    This year, Indonesia’s military has increased operations to hunt down and respond to attacks by pro-independence fighters with West Papua National Liberation Army (WPNLA) which considers Indonesia an occupying force in its homeland.

    Since late 2018, several regencies in the Indonesian-ruled Papuan provinces have become mired in conflict, notably Nduga, Yahukimo, Intan Jaya, Puncak Jaya, Maybrat as well as Pegunungan Bintang regency on the international border with Papua New Guinea.

    The ongoing cycle of violence has created a steady trickle of deaths on both sides, and also among the many villages caught in the middle.

    Identifying the death toll is difficult, especially because Indonesian authorities restrict outside access to Papua.

    However, research by the West Papua Council of Churches points to at least 400 deaths due to the conflict in the aforementioned regencies since December 2018, including people who have fled their villages to escape military operations and then died due to the unavailability of food and medicine.

    ‘Some cross into PNG’
    “We have received reports that at least 60,000 Papuan people from our congregations have currently evacuated to the surrounding districts, including some who have crossed into Papua New Guinea,” says Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman, president of the Fellowship of Baptist Churches of West Papua.

    West Papuan villagers flee their homes due to armed conflict in Maybrat regency, September 2021.
    West Papuan villagers flee their homes due to the armed conflict in Maybrat regency, September 2021. Image: RNZ Pacific

    The humanitarian crisis which Yoman described has spilled over into Papua New Guinea, bringing its own security and pandemic threats to PNG border communities like Tumolbil village in remote Telefomin district.

    Reverend Yoman and others within the West Papua Council of Churches have made repeated calls for the government to pull back its forces.

    They seek a circuit-breaker to end to the conflict in Papua which remains based on unresolved grievances over the way Indonesia took control in the 1960s, and the denial of a legitimate self-determination for West Papuans.

    But it is not simply the war between Indonesia’s military and the Liberation Army or OPM fighters that has created ongoing upheavals for Papuans.

    This year has seen:

    • more arbitrary arrests and detention of Papuans for peaceful political expression;
    • treason charges for the same;
    • harassment of prominent human rights defenders;
    • more oil palm, mining and environmental degradation that threatens Papuans’ access to their land and forest;
    • a move by Indonesian lawmakers to extend an unpopular Special Autonomy Law roundly rejected by Papuans; and
    • a terror plot by alleged Muslim extremists in Merauke Regency in Papua’s south-east corner.
    Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman
    Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman … the Indonesian president and vice-president have “turned a blind eye and heart to the Papua confict”. Image: RNZ Pacific

    Not only the churches, but also Papuan customary representatives, civil society and the pro-independence movement have been calling for international help for many years, particularly for an intermediary to facilitate dialogue with Indonesia towards some sort of peaceful settlement.

    Groups frustrated with Jakarta
    The groups have expressed frustration about the way that Jakarta’s defensiveness over West Papua’s sovereignty leaves little room for solutions to end conflict in the New Guinea territory.

    On the other hand, Indonesian government officials point towards various major infrastructure projects in Papua as a sign that President Joko Widodo’s economic development campaign is creating improvements for local communities.

    Despite the risks of exacerbating the spread of covid-19 in Papua, Indonesia recently held the National Games in Jayapura, with President Widodo presiding over the opening and closing of the event, presenting it as a showcase of unity and development in the eastern region.

    “The president and vice-president of Indonesia while in Papua did not discuss the resolution of the protracted Papua conflict. They turned a blind eye and heart to the Papua confict,” says Reverend Yoman.

    Beyond the gloss of the Games, Papuans were still being taken in by authorities as treason suspects if they bore the colours of the banned Papuan Morning Star flag.

    Regional response
    At their last in-person summit before the pandemic, in 2019, Pacific Islands Forum leaders agreed to press Indonesia to allow the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights into Papua region in order for it to present them with an independent assessment of the rights situation in West Papua.

    Advocating for the UN visit, as a group in the Forum, appears to be as far out on a limb that regional countries — including Australia and New Zealand — are prepared to go on West Papua.

    However even before 2019, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights office had already been trying for years to send a team to Papua, and found it difficult securing Indonesia’s approval.

    That the visit has still not happened since the Forum push indicates that West Papua remains off limits to the international community as far as Jakarta is concerned, no matter how much it points to the pandemic as being an obstacle.

    Indonesian military forces conduct operations in Intan Jaya, Papua province.
    Indonesian military forces conduct operations in Intan Jaya, Papua province. Image: RNZ Pacific

    The question of how the Pacific can address the problem of West Papua is also re-emerging at the sub-regional level within the Melanesian Spearhead Group whose full members are PNG, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia’s Kanaks.

    The United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) is looking to unlock the voice of its people at the regional level by applying again for full membership in the MSG, after its previous application had “disappeared”.

    The ULMWP’s representative in Vanuatu, Freddy Waromi, this month submitted the application at the MSG headquarters in Port Vila.

    No voice at the table
    The organisation already has observer status in the MSG, but as Waromi said, as observers they do not have a voice at the table.

    “When we are with observer status, we always just observe in the MSG meeting, we cannot voice our voice out.

    “But with the hope that we become a full member we can have a voice in MSG and even in Pacific Islands Forum and even other important international organisations.”

    Freddie Waromi, ULMWP representative in Vanuatu
    ULMWP representative in Vanuatu Freddie Waromi … “with the hope that we become a full member we can have a voice in MSG.” Image: RNZ Pacific

    Indonesia, which is an associate member of the MSG, opposes the ULMWP’s claim to represent West Papuans.

    “They’re still encouraging them (the MSG) not to accept us,” Waromi said of Jakarta.

    He said the conflict had not abated since he fled from his homeland into PNG in 1979, but only worsened.

    “Fighting is escalating now in the highlands region of West Papua – in Nduga, in Intan Jaya, in Wamena, in Paniai – all those places, fighting between Indonesian military and the National Liberation Army of West Papua has been escalating, it’s very bad now.”

    Vanuatu consistently strong
    Vanuatu is the only country in the Pacific Islands region whose government has consistently voiced strong support for the basic rights of West Papuans over the years. Other Melanesian countries have at times raised their voice, but the key neighbouring country of PNG has been largely silent.

    The governor of PNG’s National Capital District, Powes Parkop, this month in Parliament lambasted successive PNG governments for failing to develop a strong policy on West Papua.

    Powes Parkop, the governor of Papua New Guinea's National Capital District.
    Governor Powes Parkop of Papua New Guinea’s National Capital District … “We have adopted a policy that is shameful and unethical.” Image: Johnny Blades/RNZ Pacific

    He claimed that PNG’s long silence on the conflict had been based on fear, and a “total capitulation to Indonesian aggression and illegal occupation”.

    “We have adopted a policy that is shameful and unethical,” he said of PNG’s “friends to all, enemies to none” stance.

    “How do we sleep at night when the people on the other side are subject to so much violence, racism, deaths and destruction?

    “When are we going to summon the courage to talk and speak? Why are we afraid of Indonesia?”

    Parkop’s questions also apply to the Pacific region, where Indonesia’s diplomatic influence has grown in recent years, effectively quelling some of the support that the West Papua independence movement had enjoyed.

    Time is running out for West Papuans who may soon be a minority in their own land if Indonesian transmigration is left unchecked.

    Yet that doesn’t mean the conflict will fade. Until core grievances are adequately addressed, conflict can be expected to deepen in West Papua.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Yance Agapa in Jayapura

    The Papuan people have rejected the investigation team formed by the Indonesian state through the Attorney-General’s Office (AGO) to investigate alleged gross human rights violations in Paniai on 8 December 2014.

    “To this day Indonesia has never solved any cases of gross human rights violations in the land of Papua, especially not the bloody Paniai case,” said Papuan activist Andi Yeimo about the massacre when Indonesian troops killed five teenagers and wounded 17.

    “So, we the people of Paniai and the families of the victims are [instead] hoping for a visit by the United Nations High Commissioner [on Human Rights] to see for themselves the evidence and facts on the ground in Karel Gobai, the location of the shootings.”

    Yeimo believes that the Indonesian government is incapable of resolving cases of gross human rights violations and the Papuan people are asking for the United Nations to visit Papua.

    “We already know that the government talks nonsense. Indonesia once offered four billion [rupiah] (NZ$419,000) in money as compensation. But we, the families of the victims, rejected this evil attempt outright,” he said.

    In relation to a UN visit to Papua, Yeimo said that 85 countries had already urged the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Papua.

    But Indonesia had used the covid-19 pandemic situation as grounds to prevent the visit.

    Indonesian ‘distractions’
    “Domestically, Indonesia [tries] to distract the Papuan people’s focus with the agenda of Otsus (the extension of special autonomy), the creation of new autonomous regions, the National Sports Week and military operations in West Papua,” said Yeimo.

    “All students, youth, religious figures, state civil servants and all OAP (indigenous Papuans) unite now, take part in rejecting the [investigation] team formed by the state. We Papuans all know that Indonesia has never taken responsibility for its actions.”

    Earlier, Amiruddin, the head of the investigation team into gross human rights violations, said he hoped that the newly formed team of investigators would be able to work transparently.

    “The Attorney-General’s move to form the Paniai incident investigation team is a good move”, said Amiruddin in a press release.

    • Notes from Indo Left News: On 8 December 2014, barely two months after President Joko Widodo was sworn in as president, five high-school students were killed and 17 others seriously wounded when police and military opened fire on a group of protesters and local residents in the town of Enarotali, Paniai regency. Shortly after the incident, while attending Christmas celebrations in Jayapura on December 28, Widodo personally pledged to resolve the case but seven years into his presidency no one has been held accountable for the shootings.

    Translated by James Balowski of IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Kasus Paniai Berdarah, Rakyat Tolak Tim Investigasi Buatan Negara”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    The United Nations says Indonesia must immediately drop charges and look into threats, intimidation and reprisals against human rights defender Veronica Koman and her family.

    Veronica Koman, a human and minority rights lawyer, is in self-imposed exile in Australia.

    However, she still faces several charges in Indonesia for alleged incitement, spreading fake news, displaying race-based hatred and disseminating information aimed at inflicting ethnic hatred.

    The charges were believed to have been brought against her in retaliation to her work advocating for human rights in West Papua.

    Veronica Koman was among five other human rights defenders mentioned in the UN Secretary-General’s 2021 annual report on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, Mary Lawlor, said.

    She has faced threats, harassment and intimidation for her reporting on West Papua and Papua provinces, for providing reports to UN human rights mechanisms, and for attending UN meetings, for which she was questioned by security forces.

    “This case highlights how human rights defenders are often targeted for their cooperation with the United Nations, which is fundamental to their peaceful and legitimate work in the protection and promotion of human rights,” Lawlor said.

    Explosive boxes thrown
    Acts of intimidation and threats against Koman’s family have also been reported this year, most recently on November 7, when unidentified individuals threw two small explosive boxes inside the garage of her parents’ home in West Jakarta.

    The boxes reportedly contained threatening messages, including one stating “we will scorch the earth of wherever you hide and of your protectors.”

    Another box addressed to Koman, delivered to the home of a family member, contained a dead chicken and a message saying that anyone hiding her “will end up like this”.

    “I am extremely concerned at the use of threats, intimidation and acts of reprisal against Veronica Koman and her family, which seek to undermine the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the legitimate work of human rights lawyers,” Lawlor said.

    “I urge the Indonesian government to drop the charges against her and investigate the threats and acts of intimidation in a prompt an impartial manner and bring the perpetrators to justice,” Lawlor said.

    “Impunity for violations against human rights defenders has a chilling effect on civil society as a whole.”

    The Special Rapporteur will continue to monitor the case and is in contact with the Indonesian authorities on the matter.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Mental illness has historically dwelt in the shadows of the global health and development agenda and only recently has moved from the margins to become a central priority in research and policy. Mental disorders account for 30% of the worldwide non-fatal disease burden and 10% of the overall disease burden, including death and disability, and the cost to the global economy is estimated to reach as high as USD 6 trillion by 2030. Large middle- and low-income countries like Indonesia struggle with a plethora of challenges in delivering adequate mental health care to its 270.2 million citizens. Centralised funding for Indonesian mental health is only 1% of the national health budget; health expenditure is around 3% of GDP. National health programming such as Indonesia Sehat, the incorporation of mental health into primary care basic standards and voluntary contributions from provincial budgets does provide some additional resources. However, there is a severe shortage of mental health personnel, treatment and care facilities, especially outside the island of Java.

    Estimations based on the 2018 Basic Health Survey (RISKESDAS) indicate there are 450 000 families in Indonesia with at least one member diagnosed with schizophrenia; given the high level of stigma against mental illness and psychosocial disabilities, we suggest this number is much larger. Many of these people are subject to human rights abuses, being left to languish in cages, stocks or chains referred to as Pasung. Human Rights Watch estimated that 12,800 people were experiencing Pasung at the end of 2018. Over 26.23 million people, more than the entire population of Australia, suffer from clinically relevant symptoms of anxiety and depression and 16.33 million likely meet the diagnostic criteria for a depressive disorder.

    Although there is a shift to community-based outpatient models of care, Indonesia’s 48 mental  hospitals and 269 psychiatric wards in general hospitals are still the primary sources of care. There are just over 1000 registered psychiatrists, 2000 clinical psychologists, 7000 community mental health nurses, 1500 mental health trained GPs and 7000 lay mental health workers unevenly distributed across the archipelago, (Ministry of Health Regulation on Pasung Management, 2017; Pols, 2020). Need outstrips supply, with eight provinces without a mental hospital: three of these hospitals without a single psychiatrist. Less than half of all primary care centres and only 56% of government district hospitals are equipped to handle mental health cases. Fortunately, there are many passionate and committed mental health personnel, government officials, academics, consumer group founders and mental health advocates who are working tirelessly to implement the vision embodied by the 2014 Indonesian Mental Health Law. Our webinar for World Mental Health Day is a small sample of these extraordinary individuals, who will share their experiences in Indonesian mental health.

    Dr Nova Riyanti Yusuf, a psychiatrist, legislator (member of the DPR from 2009-14 and 2018-19), novelist, scholar, television personality and activist, was one of the driving forces behind the 2014 mental health law. She will talk about the ongoing journey of the mental health law, what its vision is for Indonesian mental health and the current state of implementation at the grass roots level. Professor Hans Pols, a renown psychiatric historian based at University of Sydney and expert on Indonesian mental health will then take us through a brief history of Indonesian Psychiatry and will talk about some of the emerging trends for the future of the profession across the archipelago. Anto Sg, Pasung survivor and current recipient of an Australia Award currently studying a Master of Health Promotion at Deakin University, will share his person experience of Pasung and introduce the survivor or consumer group movement in Indonesia. Dr Erminia Colucci currently based at Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, UK will is working with the Center for Public Mental Health (CPMH), Psychology at the University of Gadjah Mada and Ade Prastyani, GP and scholar on traditional healing approaches to mental health. We will show a short exert of their upcoming film produced by their collaborative Together4MentalHealth. After which, CPMH director, distinguished academic and clinical psychologist Dr Diana Setiyawati will provide us with a current update on community mental health initiatives in the age of Covid19. Aliza Hunt, Centre for Mental Health Research PhD Candidate and Endeavour Scholar at the ANU is chairing the session.

    The post Video: Mental health in Indonesia: then, now and things to come appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • “There’s a stigma in society that we’re a curse,” says 26-year-old Feronika, a transgender woman in Palu, Indonesia. “But we’re perfect the way we are. We have two hands just like everyone else, and we’ll use them to improve our society. If people think we’re a curse, we’ll be a blessing in return.” For Feronika, this …Read More

    This post was originally published on American Jewish World Service – AJWS.

  • Bell Textron Inc., a Textron Inc. company, announced the successful sale and delivery of two Bell 505 helicopters to the Indonesian Navy. The newly acquired helicopters will be utilized as basic helicopter trainers. “The Bell 505, which has surpassed 50,000 flight hours globally, is an excellent aircraft for training pilots to fly today’s modern aircraft […]

    The post Bell Delivers Two Bell 505 Helicopters to the Indonesian Navy appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • To mark International Human Rights Day, the ANU Indonesia Institute is hosting a discussion on women’s rights and gender equality in Indonesia. Speakers will examine the extent to which Indonesian women have achieved equality in a broad array of political, economic and social fields, and what Indonesian women are doing today to overcome the obstacles that lie in the path of gender equality. Join us for what is sure to be an important, challenging and inspiring discussion.

    When: 9 December 2021

    2-4pm AEDT (Canberra UTC+11)
    10am-12pm WIB (Jakarta UTC+7)

    Where: on ZOOM

    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO ATTEND

    Please note: Simultaneous translation from English into Bahasa Indonesia will be available on a separate channel in the zoom meeting.

    Chair

    Dr Eva Nisa
    Senior Lecturer, School of Culture, History and Languages, and ANU Indonesia Institute
    The Australian National University.

    Topics and speakers

    Pursuing equal political representation.

    Sri Budi Eko Wardani
    Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and Director of the Center for Political Studies, Universitas Indonesia.
    Achieving women’s sexual and reproductive rights and health.

    Dr Marcia Soumokil
    Country Director IPAS Indonesia (Yayasan Inisiatif Perubahan Akses menuju Sehat Indonesia)
    Countering gender-based violence and harassment.

    Anindya Restuviani
    Director of Jakarta Feminist and Co-Director of Hollaback! Jakarta.
    The gender pay gap and female labour force participation.

    Dr Diana Contreras Suarez
    Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne.
    Women in the media and building a feminist voice.

    Devi Asmarani
    Editor-in-Chief and co-founder of women-focused webmagazine Magdalene (www.magdalene.co)

    Speaker Biographies

    Dr Eva Nisa is a cultural anthropologist and expert in Islamic studies. Her research and publications focus on the intersections between religious, cultural, political, economic, legal, social, and philosophical aspects of peoples’ lives. She is interested in global currents of Islam reshaping the lives of Muslims in Southeast Asia, especially Indonesia and Malaysia. Her research has involved international collaborative projects with scholars from the USA, Germany, Australia, the Netherlands, Indonesia, Austria, Malaysia, New Zealand, Thailand and Singapore. Currently, she serves on the editorial board of The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology. 

    Dr Marcia Soumokil is the director of Ipas Indonesia. Prior to joining Ipas, Dr. Soumokil worked for several international organizations within Indonesia in the areas of HIV, adolescent reproductive health, maternal and newborn health, and health governance. Dr. Soumokil is a trained medical doctor and began her career as a general practice physician in a community health clinic. She also holds a Masters of Public Health degree from University of Melbourne, Australia. She currently serves on the boards of the Indonesia AIDS Coalition. 

    Sri Budi Eko Wardani is a lecturer in Department of Political Science Universitas Indonesia. She is also the Director of Center for Political Studies Universitas Indonesia. She is taking her doctoral degree in politics at Department of Political Science Universitas Indonesia. Some of her previous notable research were Indonesian Voting Behavior on 1999 Election (1999-2000, collaboration with Ohio State University, USA), Strengthen and Monitoring of 2004 General Election (2003-2004, collaboration with CETRO),  Women Political Participation and Advocacy for Adoption Affirmative Policy in Political Party Law and Election Law (2007-2009, collaboration with The Asia Foundation), and Representation of Women in National and Local Legislature after 2009 Election (July – December 2010, collaboration with The Asia Foundation & AusAID).  

    Dr Diana Contreras Suarez is a Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research. Her research is driven by questions on how to improve the lives of vulnerable and disadvantaged populations, and focuses on understanding human capital formation throughout the life cycle as well as how public policy or programs work on achieving improved lives. She uses econometrics techniques to look into those questions, with most of her expertise in developing countries, including Indonesia.  

    Devi Asmarani is the Editor-in-Chief and co-founder of women-focused webmagazine Magdalene (www.magdalene.co). Her 25 years’ experience in journalism began at The Jakarta Post, followed by The Straits Times of Singapore, where she wrote news reports, in-depth articles and analyses on various issues from politics, conflicts, terrorism to natural disasters. She has also written columns, articles, essays as well as works of fiction for various local and international publications. She is also a writing and journalism instructor, and gender and media facilitator, and has worked as a consultant with international organizations. Devi is the recipient of S.K. Trimurti Awards for her work in promoting gender equality in journalism.  

    Anindya Restuviani is Program Director of Jakarta Feminist and Co-Director of Hollaback! Jakarta. She is a feminist activist with expertise in gender equality and a history of working in the development sector on issues of gender, children, and vulnerable youth with strong experience in feminist advocacy and organizing within grassroots communities and at the local, national and global level.

    The post Webinar: Women’s rights & gender equality in Indonesia appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • In his new book In Search of New Social Democracy: Insights from the South—Implications for the North (Zed-Bloomsbury), Olle Törnquist has returned to findings from fifty years of research on democracy and social rights movements in especially Indonesia, India and the Philippines, to address the major puzzle of our time: why the vision about development based on social justice by democratic means has lost ground, and if there are openings.

    In this episode of the Nordic Asia Podcast Kenneth Bo Nielsen is joined by Olle Törnquist to discuss the main results and arguments in what he calls his endbook.

    Olle Törnquist is a Swedish global historian and Professor Emeritus of Politics and Development at the University of Oslo, Norway. He has written widely on radical politics, development and democratisation.

    The Nordic Asia Podcast is a collaboration sharing expertise on Asia across the Nordic region, brought to you by the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies (NIAS) based at the University of Copenhagen, along with our academic partners: the Centre for East Asian Studies at the University of Turku, Asianettverket at the University of Oslo, and the Stockholm Centre for Global Asia at Stockholm University.

    We aim to produce timely, topical and well-edited discussions of new research and developments about Asia.

    Transcripts of the Nordic Asia Podcasts: http://www.nias.ku.dk/nordic-asia-podcast

    The post NBSEAS: In Search of New Social Democracy: Insights from the South—Implications for the North appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • Shocking footage has been circulating on social media showing National Armed Forces (TNI) Indonesian military helicopters firing indiscriminately at civilian villages in Suru-Suru District, Yahukimo Regency, Papua. Video: via Café Pacific

    SPECIAL REPORT: By Yamin Kogoya

    This past week marked 60 years since West Papua declared independence on 1 December 1961.

    Around the world, Papuans and solidarity groups commemorated this national day in melancholic spirits — the weight of that fateful day carries courage and pride, but also great suffering and betrayal.

    Outraged by 60 years of silence and ignorance, Powes Parkop, the Governor of Papua New Guinea’s capital, strongly condemned the PNG government in Port Moresby last week. He said the government shouldn’t ignore the crisis in the Indonesian-controlled region of New Guinea.

    Parkop accused the government of doing little to hold Indonesia accountable for decades of human rights violations in West Papua in a series of questions in Parliament directed at Foreign Minister Soroi Eoe.

    Port Moresby's Governor Powes Parkop
    Port Moresby’s Governor Powes Parkop with the West Papuan Morning Star flag … criticised PNG policy of “seeing no evil, speaking no evil and to say no evil against the evils of Indonesia”. Image: Filbert Simeon

    “Hiding under a policy of ‘Friends to All, Enemy to None’ might be okay for the rest of the world, but it is total capitulation to Indonesian aggression and illegal occupation,” Parkop said.

    “It is more a policy of seeing no evil, speaking no evil and to say no evil against the evils of Indonesia.”

    A similar voice also echoed from staff members of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre during their West Papua flagraising event at their office in Suva on Wednesday.

    Ignorance ‘needs to stop’
    Shamima Ali, coordinator and human rights activist from the crisis centre, said Pacific leaders — including Fiji — have been too silent on the issue of West Papua and the ignorance needed to stop.

    Ali said that since Indonesia’s occupation of West Papua, gross human rights violations — including enforced disappearances, bombings, rocket attacks, torture, arbitrary detention, beatings, killings, sexual torture, rape, forced birth control, forced abortions, displacement, starvation, and burnings– had sadly become an enforced “way of life” for West Papuans.

    Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre shows solidarity for West Papua
    Staff members of the Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre show solidarity for West Papua at their office in Suva last Wednesday – December 1. Image: FWCC

    SBS also narrated last week’s commemoration of December 1 in Canberra, in which Papuans raised the banned Morning Star flag and expressed the significance of the flag-raising to Papuans.

    As a mark of remembrance, flags were raised all across the globe from Oxford — the refugee home of Benny Wenda, the West Papua independence icon — to Holland, homeland of many descendants of exiled Papuan independence leaders who left the island in protest against Indonesia’s illegal annexation in 1960.

    Celebrating Papuans’ national day in West Papua or anywhere in Indonesia is not safe.

    Amnesty International Indonesia reported last Friday that police arrested and charged eight Papuan students for peacefully expressing their political opinions on December 1 — Papuans’ Independence Day.

    The report also stated that Papuans frequently face detention and charges for peacefully expressing their political views. But counter-protesters often assault Papuans under police watch with no repercussions.

    Eight arrested in Jayapura
    At least eight people were arrested in Jayapura, Papua, and 19 were arrested in Merauke, Papua, for displaying the Morning Star flag.

    In Ambon and Bali, 19 people were injured by police beatings, and 13 people were injured when protesters were physically attacked by counter-protesters who used racist language, reports Amnesty International Indonesia.

    In West Papua, the Indonesian police are also reported to have investigated eight young Papuans involved in raising the Morning Star flag in front of the Cenderawasih Sport Stadium, known as GOR in Jayapura Papua, according to the public relations Chief of Papua Police, Ahmad Musthofa Kamal.

    Across West Papua, the Morning Star flag has been raised in six districts: Star Mountains, Intan Jaya, Puncak, Central Mamberamo, Paniai, and Jayapura City.

    Unfortunately, Papuans are hunted like wild animals on this day as Jakarta continues to force them to become a part of Indonesia’s national narrative. The stories of which, for the past 60 years, have been nothing but nightmares filled with mass torture, death, and total erasure.

    Amid all the celebrations, protests, and arrests happening across the globe on this national day, shocking footage emerged of yet another aerial attack in the Star Mountain region.

    In the last few days, shocking footage has been circulating on social media showing National Armed Forces (TNI) Indonesian military helicopters firing indiscriminately at civilian villages in Suru-Suru District, Yahukimo Regency, Papua.

    According to reports, this is the result of a shooting incident between the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) and the TNI in which a TNI member was killed, and another was wounded.

    Soldier flown to Aceh
    Serda Putra Rahaldi was one of those killed in the incident. He was flown to Aceh via Jakarta.

    Praka Suheri, another TNI soldier wounded in the incident, has also been evacuated to Timika Regional General Hospital for treatment.

    It is difficult to know the exact circumstances leading to the death of a soldier, but Brigadier General TNI Izak Pangemanan, Commander of Military Resort 172/PWY, says two soldiers were drinking water in a shelter located only 15 meters from the post when the shooting took place, Antara reported on Saturday, December 4, 2021.

    Since November 20, five TNI soldiers have been wounded, including Sergeant Ari Baskoro and Serda Putra Rahaldi, who died in Suru-suru, Antara reported on Saturday, December 4, 2021.

    The armed conflicts remain tense between the TPNPB and the TNI in seven regencies in the territory of West Papua, namely: Yahukimo District, Intan Jaya Regency, Star Mountains Regency, Nduga District, Peak District, and Maybrat-Sorong Regency.

    This seemingly low-level, yet hidden conflict between the Indonesian state security forces and the TPNPB continues, if not worsens, and the world has largely turned a blind eye to it.

    The Papuan church leaders stated in local media, Jubi, on Thursday November 25, that a massive military build-up and conflict between Indonesian security forces and TPNPB had resulted in displacing more than 60,000 Papuan civilians.

    ‘More than 60,000 displaced’
    “More than 60,000 people have been displaced. Many children and mothers have been victims and died while in the evacuation camps,” said  the chair of the Synod of West Papua Baptist Churches Reverend Socrates Sofyan Yoman.

    Jakarta seems to have lost its ability to see the value of noble words inscribed in its constitution for the betterment of humanity and the nation. In essence, what is written, what they say, and what they practise all contradict one another – and therein lies the essence of the human tragedy.

    On December 1, 1961, the sacred Papuan state was seized with guns, lies and propaganda.

    On May 1, 1963, Indonesia came to West Papua with guns.

    In 1969, Jakarta forced Papuan elders to accept Indonesia during a fraud referendum at gunpoint. In the 1970s, Indonesia used guns and bombs to massacre Papuan highland villagers.

    And after 60 years, Jakarta is still choosing guns and bombs as their preferred means to eradicate Papuans.

    Sixty years on, the making of the current state of West Papua with guns and bombs is difficult to forget. Although West Papua lacks one key characteristic that East Timor had that brought international attention to their ardent independence war.

    Morning Star flag – always flying
    Nevertheless, as demonstrated around the world last week on December 1, their banned Morning Star flag seemed to always be flying in some corner of the world.

    As long as Papuans fly the Morning Star flag, their plight will challenge the human heart that cries out for freedom that binds us all together, despite our differences.

    As Indonesia’s state violence intensifies, Indonesians are likely to sympathise more with Papuans’ plight for justice and freedom.

    At some point, the government of Indonesia must choose whether to continue to ignore Papuans and use guns and bombs to crush them or to recognise them with a new perspective.

    Yamin Kogoya is a West Papuan academic who has a Master of Applied Anthropology and Participatory Development from the Australian National University and who contributes to Asia Pacific Report. From the Lani tribe in the Papuan Highlands, he is currently living in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By Dhias Suwandi in Jayapura

    Eight youths have been declared suspects on charges of makar (treason, subversion, rebellion) for flying the banned Papuan independence flag Morning Star at the Cenderawasih Sports Centre in the capital Jayapura this week on December 1.

    The Morning Star is a symbol used as a flag by the Free Papua Organisation (OPM) and by most civil society organisations.

    They have been identified by their initials MSY, YM, MY, MK, BM, FK, MP and MW — most of them university students.

    Flag-raising protests across the world were staged in solidarity with West Papuan calls for self-determination.

    The flag-raising commemorations marked the 60th anniversary of West Papua’s declaration of independence from Dutch colonial rule in 1961.

    The Cenderawasih Sports Centre flag-raising incident took place on Wednesday afternoon. Prior to holding the action, on November 30, the eight youths held a meeting in the vicinity of Asmara Maro, claimed police reports.

    The meeting was allegedly chaired by MY alias M who acted as the leader of the action and the flag raiser. MY also made the flag and the banner later carried by the suspects.

    Parliamentary march planned
    After flying the flag above the Cendrawasih Sports Centre (GOR), the youths had planned to march to the Papua Regional House of Representatives (DPRD).

    The banned Morning Star flag flies above Cenderawasih Sports Centre
    The banned Morning Star flag flies above Cenderawasih Sports Centre building in Jayapura, Papua, on “independence day” December 1. Image: Antara News

    Papua regional police public relations division head Senior Commissioner AM Kamal explained that seven of the youths were tasked with flying the flag and marching towards the Papua regional police headquarters (Mapolda) while carrying a banner with the Morning Star drawn on it.

    The eighth person meanwhile was tasked with documenting the action and spreading it on social media.

    The eight have been charged under Article 106 of the Criminal Code (KUHP) in conjunction with Article 110 of the KUHP in conjunction with Article 87 of the KUHP on “plotting to commit crimes against state security”.

    “Currently the eight suspects are being held at the Papua Mapolda detention centre for further legal processing,” said Kamal.

    Amnesty International criticism
    On Friday, Amnesty International criticised the arrests, among 34 detentions this week of Papuan protesters, as well as 19 injuries sustained at demonstrations elsewhere in Indonesia.

    “No one should be detained simply for peacefully expressing their political opinions,” said Amnesty’s Indonesia director Usman Hamid, news agency reports said.

    Police did not immediately respond to media requests for comment on Amnesty’s statement.

    In June 2020, Indonesia sentenced to prison seven Papuans for treason, while Papuan independence figure Filep Karma spent 11 years in prison after raising the banned flag publicly. He was released in 2015.

    In Ambon, Maluku, Beritabeta reports that a demonstration by scores of Papuan students marking Independence Day ended in chaos after it was forcibly broken up by police.

    The Papuan students, who are undergoing their studies in Ambon, refused to accept the police actions and fought back.

    The police finally succeeded in forcing the demonstrators back, who were wearing clothing and accessories with the Morning Star flag on them.

    Ambon and the Ambon islands municipal police public relations division head, Second Police Inspector Izaac Leatemia, told journalists that the demonstration was broken up because the protesters did not have a permit from police.

    Attacked by vigilantes
    In the Balinese provincial capital of Denpasar, a protest by the Bali City Committee Papua Student Alliance (AMP-KKB) and the Indonesian People’s Front for West Papua (FRI-WP) ended in a clash with a vigilante group called the Nusantara Garuda Patriots (PGN), reports Detik.com.

    The AMP-KKB said that 12 of its members were injured during the clash.

    “Based on our data from the AMP there were 12 of our comrades (who suffered injuries). Some were kicked by the PGN, and then there were comrades who were hit by rocks,”, said AMP-KKB chairperson Yesaya Gobay.

    Translated by James Balowski for IndoLeft News. The original title of the article was “Kibarkan Bendera Bintang Kejora di Sebelah Polda Papua, 8 Pemuda di Jayapura Jadi Tersangka Makar”.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • RNZ Pacific

    Vanuatu’s Shefa province is recognising Benny Wenda as the interim president of a provisional “independent” West Papuan government.

    In a country that has historically been the most vocal in support of West Papuan self-determination rights, Shefa province is the first authority in the country to officially recognise an independent West Papua government.

    Wenda, a West Papuan pro-independence activist who fled persecution in his homeland under Indonesian control, was granted asylum in the United Kingdom in 2003.

    A year ago, as the head of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP), Wenda announced that it was forming a “provisional government” of West Papua, with him as the interim president.

    Shefa’s recognition of that government was announced by the Secretary-General of Shefa provincial government, Morris Kaloran, to mark the 60th aniversary of West Papua’s “declaration of independence” in 1961 which was soon overshadowed by a controversial US-brokered agreement which paved the way for Indonesia to take control of Papua.

    Kaloran said the ULMWP provisional government and its interim president were the legitimate representatives of the people of West Papua and their struggle.

    In a symbolic gesture, Shefa province had already adopted the indigenous Melanesian people of West Papua and their struggle for self-determination and liberation from Indonesian rule.

    Melanesian ‘destiny joined’
    “The destiny of our two Melanesian peoples of West Papua and Vanuatu is joined. The West Papuan people remain enslaved and colonised in 21st century, subject to discrimination, assassination and military operations,” Kaloran said.

    “Their gallant freedom struggle, under the guidance and leadership of the ULMWP Provisional Government, is moving ever closer to victory. Until the people of West Papua are, no one in Melanesia is free.”

    Hundreds of ni-Vanuatu, and West Papuan representatives, march to the Melanesian Spearhead Group secretariat in Port Vila.
    Hundreds of ni-Vanuatu, and West Papuan representatives, march for West Papuan independence in Vanuatu’s capital Port Vila. Image: Joe Collins/AWPA

    Indonesia’s government opposes the ULMWP’s claims to represent West Papuans, saying the people of the Papuan provinces of Indonesia have democratic rights like other people in the republic.

    Both Indonesia and the ULMWP have been granted membership in the Melanesian Spearhead Group, whose full members — Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and New Caledonia’s Kanak independence movement — have expressed a wish for Jakarta to engage in dialogue with West Papuans about their grievances.

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

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • From RNZ

    Pro-independence advocates say the human rights situation in West Papua continues to worsen because of “deliberate ignorance” by Pacific neighbours and the international community.

    A collation of Pacific NGOs organised solidarity flag raising events across the region on Wednesday — December 1 — to commemorate 60 years since the banned Morning Star flag was raised in West Papua.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Asia Pacific Report newsdesk

    From Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau in Aotearoa New Zealand to Paris, France, and from Wellington Te Whanganui-a-Tara to Jayapura and far beyond, thousands of people across the world today raised the Morning Star flag — banned by Indonesian authorities — in simple acts of defiance and solidarity with West Papuans.

    They honoured the raising of the flag for the first time 60 years ago on 1 December 1961 as a powerful symbol of the long West Papua struggle for independence.

    One of the first flag-raising events today was in Wellington where Peace Movement Aotearoa and Youngsolwara Pōneke launched a virtual ceremony online with most participants displaying the banned flag.

    Green MP Teanau Tuiono
    Green MP Teanau Tuiono … indigenous solidarity for West Papuans. Image: APR screenshot

    Hosted by Victoria University Pacific studies lecturer Dr Emalani Case, a Hawai’an, many young Pacific Islanders spoke of the indigenous struggle in West Papua and their hopes for eventual independence.

    “Here in Aotearoa, we have the opportunity and the privilege of being able to raise the flag without being punished for it,” Dr Case said.

    Two Green MPs — Teanau Tuiono and Eugenie Sage — were also among the “flag-raisers”, declaring their solidarity with the Papuan self-determination struggle.

    Asia Pacific Report editor Dr David Robie and Del Abcede were among those who spoke.

    In six decades of brutal civil conflict, hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost through combat and deprivation, and Indonesia has been criticised internationally for human rights abuses, reports Stefan Armbruster of SBS News.

    In Australia, the Morning Star flew in activist Ronny Kareni’s adopted hometown of Canberra.

    Asia Pacific Report's Dr David Robie and Del Abcede
    Asia Pacific Report’s Dr David Robie and Del Abcede … messages of West Papuan support. Image: APR screenshot

    “It brings tears of joy to me because many Papuan lives, those who have gone before me, have shed blood or spent time in prison, or died just because of raising the Morning Star flag,” Kareni, the Australian representative of the United Liberation Movement of West Papua (ULMWP), told SBS.

    “Commemorating the 60th anniversary for me demonstrates hope and also the continued spirit in fighting for our right to self-determination and West Papua to be free from Indonesia’s brutal occupation.”

    Ronny Kareni
    West Papua’s Ronny Kareni … “Commemorating the 60th anniversary for me demonstrates hope and also the continued spirit in fighting for our right to self-determination.” Image: SBS

    Indonesia’s diplomats regularly issue statements criticising the flag protests, including two years ago when the flag was raised at Sydney’s Leichhardt Town Hall, as “a symbol of separatism” that could be “misinterpreted to represent support from the Australian government”.

    No response to questions about the flag’s 60th anniversary had been received by SBS News from the Indonesian embassy this year and community members and groups declined to comment.

    “It’s a symbol of an aspiring independent state which would secede from the unitary Indonesian republic, so the flag itself isn’t particularly welcome within official Indonesian political discourse,” said Vedi Hadiz, an Indonesian citizen and director of the Asia Institute at the University of Melbourne.

    “The raising of the flag is an expression of the grievances they hold against Indonesia for the way that economic and political governance and development has taken place over the last 60 years.

    “But it’s really part of the job of Indonesian officials to make a counterpoint that West Papua is a legitimate part of the unitary republic.”

    The history of the Morning Star
    After World War II, a wave of decolonisation swept the globe.

    The Netherlands reluctantly relinquished the Dutch East Indies in 1949, which became Indonesia, but held onto Dutch New Guinea, much to the chagrin of President Sukarno, who led the independence struggle.

    In 1957 Sukarno began seizing the remaining Dutch assets and expelled 40,000 Dutch citizens, many of whom were evacuated to Australia, in large part over The Netherlands’ reluctance to hand over Dutch New Guinea.

    The Dutch created the New Guinea Council of predominantly elected Papuan representatives in 1961 and it declared a 10-year roadmap to independence, adopted the Morning Star flag, the national anthem — “Hai Tanahku Papua” or “Oh My Land Papua” — and a coat-of-arms for a future state to be known as “West Papua”.

    Dutch and West Papuan flags
    The Dutch and West Papuan flags fly side-by-side in 1961. Image: SBS

    The West Papua flag was inspired by the red, white and blue of the Dutch but the design can hold different meanings for the traditional landowners.

    “The five-pointed star has the cultural connection to the creation story, the seven blue lines represent the seven customary land groupings,” Kareni told SBS.

    The red is now often cited as a tribute to the blood spilt fighting for independence.

    Attending the 1961 inauguration were Britain, France, New Zealand and Australia — represented by the president of the Senate Sir Alister McMullin in full ceremonial attire — but the United States, after initially accepting an invitation, withdrew.

    Morning Star raised for first time
    The Morning Star flag was raised for the first time alongside the Dutch one at a military parade in the capital Hollandia, now called Jayapura, on December 1.

    On December 19, President Sukarno began ordering military incursions into what he called “West Irian”, which saw thousands of soldiers parachute or land by sea ahead of battles they overwhelmingly lost.

    With long supply lines on the other side of the world and waning international support, the Dutch sensed their time was up and signed the territory over to UN control in October 1962 under the “New York Agreement”, which abolished the symbols of a future West Papuan state, including the flag.

    The Morning Star flag in Paris
    The Morning Star flag in Paris, France. Image: AWPA

    The UN handed control to Indonesia in May 1963 on condition it prepared the territory for a referendum on self-determination.

    The so-called Act Of Free Choice referendum in 1969 saw the Indonesian military round up 1025 Papuan leaders who then voted unanimously to become part of Indonesia.

    The outcome was accepted by the UN General Assembly, which failed to declare if the referendum complied with the “self-determination” requirements of the New York Agreement, and Dutch New Guinea was incorporated into Indonesia.

    In 1971, the Free Papua Movement (OPM) declared the “republic of West Papua” with the Morning Star as its flag, which has gone on to become a potent binding symbol for the movement.

    “It’s a milestone, 60 years, and we’re still waiting to freely sing the national anthem and freely fly the Morning Star flag so it’s very significant for us, ” Kareni said.

    “We still continue to fight, to claim our rights and sovereignty of the land and people.”

    Morning Star flag-raising in Brisbane
    Morning Star flag-raising at a public lecture by Professor David Robie at Griffith University’s Brisbane campus before the  in October 2019 before the Melanesian Media Freedom Forum (MMFF) conference. Image: Griffith University

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • By David Robie

    Pressure is mounting on Indonesia to back off its brutal and unsuccessful military strategy in trying to crush West Papuan resistance to its flawed rule in “the land of Papua”.

    Critics have intensified their condemnation of the intransigent “no negotiations” stance of authorities as West Papuans mark their national day today on 1 December 1961 when the banned Morning Star flag of independence was raised for the first time.

    The TNI (Indonesian military), the Polri (Indonesian police) and the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB) have been locked in a conflict since Jakarta ordered a crackdown in May following a declaration of resistance groups as “terrorists”.

    Many groups have raised their criticism of Jakarta’s flawed handling of its two colonised Melanesian provinces, Papua and West Papua. Recent developments include:

    ‘Path of violence’
    Pastor Benny Giay, a member of the Papua Council of Churches, says the Indonesian government is still choosing the path of violence in dealing with the armed conflict.

    The council has come to this conclusion based on its experience of how conflicts in Papua have been handled in the past and the recent situation, involving six regencies in Papua — Intan Jaya, the Bintang Mountains, Nduga, Yahukimo, Maybrat and Puncak Papua.

    “Based on past experience and the most recent facts, we concluded that the Indonesian government is still choosing the path of violence in dealing with the Papua conflict,” said Pastor Giay, according to CNN Indonesia.

    Giay said that as a consequence of many years of armed conflict, at least 60,000 Papuans had fled into the forests or neighbouring regencies.

    He and three other pastors view this as part of what could not be separated from the politics of “systematic racism”.

    They suspect that “buzzers” — fake internet account operators — are being used by Indonesian intelligence and pro-government groups.

    These buzzers, said Pastor Giay, continued to spread hoaxes and news containing anti-Papuan views based on racism against the Papuan people.

    ‘Prolonged suffering’
    The Papua Council of Churches is calling for the United Nations Human Rights Council (Dewan HAM PBB) to visit Papua to see the humanitarian crisis directly – “the prolonged suffering of Papuans for the last 58 years.”

    The council also wants the Indonesian government to put an end to its racist policies.

    Pastor Giay and his fellow pastors have demanded that President Widodo be consistent about a statement he made on September 30, 2019, agreeing to dialogue with the ULMWP.

    “Mediated by a third party [in a similar way] as took place between the Indonesian government and the GAM (Free Aceh Movement) on August 15, 2005,” said Pastor Giay.

    Deputy Presidential Chief of Staff Jaleswari Pramodhawardani has reportedly said that the government was managing the security situation in Papua and West Papua provinces in “accordance with the law”.

    This was conveyed in response to a UN report in intimidation and violence against human rights activists in Papua, says CNN Indonesia.

    ELSHAM Papua open letter
    Open letter of protest from ELSHAM Papua. Image: Screenshot APR

    Open letter of protest
    On November 15, ELSHAM Papua sent an open letter to President Widodo protesting about the presence of non-organic troops in Papua and West Papua provinces. It says this has resulted in the deaths of many civilian victims as well as members of the TNI, Polri and the TPNPB, according to Suara Papua.

    Each time an armed conflict happened, the first casualties were mothers and children — along with the elderly — who were forced to seek shelter and were suffering, ELSHAM said.

    “What is happening at the moment, once again shows that the state has been negligent in protecting its citizens,” it said.

    “It should be the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens as mandated by the preamble to the 1945 Constitution — that the state is obliged to protect everyone regardless of their birthplace in Indonesia.”

    The open letter asked the government to withdraw all non-organic troops from Papua, for the TNI, Polri and TPNPB troops to restrain themselves, and for both warring parties to prioritise respect for human rights.

    The letter also declared that security forces should not become the “accomplices of business interests and companies” in Indonesia — and instead be the protectors of ordinary people and “good” law enforcement officials.

    The open letter was supported by 24 civil society organisations which work in human rights, justice and the environment.

    Media conference by Catholic leaders in Papua
    Media conference by Catholic leaders in Jayapura, Papua. Image: Suara Papua

    Catholic leaders protest
    On November 11, some 194 Catholic leaders in Papua called for an end to Indonesian military operations.

    Speaking on behalf of the priests, Father Alberto John Bunai said the government had been ecstatic over the success of the recent 20th National Games in Papua, but the people were “deeply saddened by the suffering of God’s communities” in Nduga, Intan Jaya, Puncak, Kiwirok and Maybrat.

    “To solve the root of the problem, what is needed is dialogue and reconciliation in a dignified manner,” Father Bunai said at a “moral call” media conference in Waena, Jayapura.

    It was the church’s duty to articulate the “cries of God’s communities” who had no voice, Father Bunai said.

    “The government must halt the ongoing military operations which have resulted in the killing of civilians, violence and people being displaced in several parts of Papua.”

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • THE VILLAGE EXPLAINER: By Dan McGarry in Port Vila

    One of the key characteristics of Melanesian politics is its ability to remain formless and chaotic right up until the point where, after a strange and often obscure catalysing moment, it abruptly transforms itself.

    More than a few people will attribute Solomon Islands’ recent tragic political confrontation to Manasseh Sogavare, his decision to end diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and his intolerance in the face of Malaitan grievance.

    Sogavare has a reputation for intransigence. He can be downright pugnacious when confronted. More than a few people have laid at least part of the blame for the 2000 coup at his feet.

    But that misunderstands who he is, and how he’s managed to remain one of the most enduring characters on the Solomon Islands political scene.

    Sogavare began his career as a tea boy smartly saluting the White-socked British administrators. He is extremely proud to have become the one they salute.

    The diplomatic switch
    Those who insist on seeing the current crisis in geopolitical terms misunderstand his role in the diplomatic switch, and his approach to politics.

    Sogavare is two things:

    • He is headstrong. His rise to power is punctuated by confrontation and inflexibility. He entered politics because the PM of the day sacked him from his role as Permanent Secretary of Finance. His first term as Prime Minister was fraught with violence and hatred.
    • He is a technocrat. He will seek pragmatic solutions that are conspicuously absent of ideology, or even consistency, when circumstances dictate.

    When Solomon Islands held the chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group in 2015, he played a decisive role in brokering the awkward compromise that saw the MSG simultaneously elevate Indonesia’s status in the organisation and welcome the United Liberation Movement for West Papua, or ULMWP, into the fold.

    If he had allowed it, the matter of membership would have gone to a vote, and the vote would have split the organisation irrevocably. Instead he found a consensus solution, albeit one that defies an intellectually consistent explanation.

    This is precisely the pitfall that, if backchannel accounts are accurate, Australia led the Pacific Islands Forum into when they called for the selection of the next secretary-general to be put to a vote.

    Always an outsider
    Born in Papua New Guinea to missionary parents from Choiseul province, he’s always been an outsider and an individualist. His lack of constituency has become his stock in trade. It’s precisely because he’s not burdened by party or policy that he continually bobs to the top of the Solomon Islands political elite.

    If you had asked anyone about his stance toward China in the lead-up to the diplomatic split from Taiwan, you would likely have heard that he opposed recognition of China. But that didn’t stop him from unreservedly attacking Taiwan for its failure to address his country’s development needs.

    The critique wasn’t unmerited. For decades, Taiwan elevated its ties to the political elite over its role as a development partner. The much-maligned Constituency Development Funds that have gained outsized influence over national politics were seeded by Taiwan.

    CDFs are one of the key drivers of electoral corruption in the country. A close observer of Solomon Islands politics recently told me that to get elected in Solomon Islands now, you have to be either rich, or an MP.

    Incumbency rates increased markedly since the CDFs were made a core component in the budget process.

    It took Taiwan years to begin unhitching itself from this albatross. When they did, they left an opening for China to fill. And, in spite of their own reluctance to become stuck in the same corruption and mire that Taiwan had only just emerged from, the prize was too big to forego.

    Claiming that Sogavare drove this process ignores the power of Parliament. He knew which way they were going, and he knew what he had to do if he was going to keep his hand on the wheel.

    And that’s why he did what he did.

    Distrust of Malaitan politicians
    His distrust of senior Malaitan politicians, and his apparent willingness to use dirty tricks to remove them, are well known. It’s hard to defend many of the decisions he’s made along the way.

    But it is possible to understand and explain them.

    Manasseh Sogavare is a party of one. He retains his hold on the highest office not in spite of this, but because of it. He presents no ideological or policy threat to any of the other MPs.

    It’s precisely because of his mechanistic, arguably amoral approach to politics that he remains one of the most enduring faces on the Solomon Islands political scene.

    That hardly raises him above criticism. But it should serve as a caution to anyone who naively thinks that removing him will solve the nation’s problems — or that the nation’s political problems can be solved by a policy, a party or a single man.

    The question is not who can salve this wound afflicting Solomons society, but how these peoples can heal themselves.

    The divisions that have fuelled this most recent rupture are deep. They span decades. To think that a bit of parliamentary musical chairs will be sufficient to fix it is folly. To think that some other smart, independent man of deep conviction is going to be able to put things to rights is to ignore the evidence right in front of our eyes.

    How will history judge Sogavare? I’ll leave the last words to him. When I asked him back in 2015 about the prospect for continued violence and unrest, he said:

    “We’ve been through this three times now. And if I haven’t learned anything from 2006, then… I have myself to blame.”

    Dan McGarry was previously media director at Vanuatu Daily Post/Buzz FM96. The Village Explainer is his semi-regular newsletter containing analysis and insight focusing on under-reported aspects of Pacific societies, politics and economics. His articles are republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • As the great power rivalry intensifies, many pundits have already indicated that preserving autonomy is wishful thinking for a middle power such as Indonesia. But while the room for hedging has undoubtedly shrunk, Indonesia will continue to find ways to preserve a significant measure of its strategic autonomy. On September 2, 1948, when Mohammad Hatta, Indonesia’s first vice president, uttered the phrase mendayung diantara dua karang (translated as navigating or rowing between two reefs), the fear of having to succumb to another period of subjugation was just a bitter fruit that they were not willing to swallow.

    The fear of a loss of agency is alive and well in Indonesia’s modern collective unconscious as a post-colonial state. But as Leonard Sebastian and I noted in our essay: “remembrance of things past is not necessarily a preference for historical precedence. This is not the basis of a “free and active” (bebas aktif) foreign policy strategy”. My referencing Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time) carries the subtext of the fluidity of memory: there are things that we remember, but there are things that we remember well.

    The word “mendayung” or “navigate” evokes a textural imagination of the struggle for independence, and Indonesians remember that “navigate” is the essence of our bebas aktif foreign policy doctrine. Mendayung precludes alignment. As Hatta posited: “Do we, Indonesians, in the struggle for the freedom of our people and our country, only have to choose between Russia and America?”

    President Joko Widodo in a bilateral meeting with the President of the United States, Joe Biden at COP26 in 2021. (Public domain)

    What we remember well is that to “navigate” is about playing two superpowers off against each other; this is what Indonesia culturally regards as jalan tengah, translated as the middle way.

    What is jalan tengah, and why should we care?

    Jalan tengah is not a middle position. It is about taking risks. When Indonesia withdrew from the UN in 1965, it rejected Kissinger’s attempts to persuade Jakarta to normalise its relationship with Beijing following the US-China rapprochement in 1972, and organised military exercises in the Natunas in 1996, 2016, 2020, and 2021 against one of its biggest investors––China. These are not risk averse attitudes.

    Jalan tengah refers to a constant searching for a new equilibrium, conjuring the cultural imagery of a Pinisi ship as it navigates the ocean. The goal is twofold: to preserve strategic autonomy and to exploit a great power rivalry to its advantage. Such underlying principles perhaps inspired former Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa’s “dynamic equilibrium.” Natalegawa’s postulation was a modern reinterpretation of jalan tengah, magnifying the aspect of preserving Indonesia’s voice in regional matters. As Natalegawa’s jargon was abandoned during Joko Widodo’s administration, the underlying principle of jalan tengah continues to be prominent but reinterpreted.

    As the inherently unstable multipolarity comes of age, jalan tengah teaches two lessons about Indonesia–––one of policy and another of identity.

    Public opinion and civil society: shaping Indonesia’s South China Sea Policy?

    Public opinion should force the Indonesian government to consider and adjust its policies and responses to China in the South China Sea.

    Jalan tengah makes Indonesia’s concept of strategic autonomy pliable. Under the Jokowi presidency, Indonesia has been willing to sacrifice some degree of autonomy by accepting Chinese investments for the sake of economic development. There are two revealing examples. First, Jakarta started to design (in some instances) an unfair bidding process for investments that only China could access. Second, violating its own domestic law that forbids foreign investors from owning shares totalling greater than 49 per cent, Jakarta made an exception for a consortium of Chinese companies, Shanghai Decent Investment (Group) Co., Ltd., to own 66.25 per cent of the shares in Indonesia’s Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP). (IMIP is the biggest cluster of Chinese investments in Indonesia to date.)

    The two examples are not a sign of China’s success in buying Indonesia’s acquiescence. In fact, Beijing has accepted many conditions imposed by Jakarta, such as the elimination of sovereign guarantees in some high-profile investments (e.g., Jakarta-Bandung High Speed Rail). Moreover, Jakarta continues to contest the legality of China’s traditional fishing ground claim in the Natunas.

    Indonesia’s decision to gamble with a degree of its strategic autonomy should thus be regarded as the latest reinterpretation of what jalan tengah entails. The gambit of compromising autonomy is also a tactic to entice the U.S. to start paying attention to Indonesia. This has borne fruit. Washington has acknowledged Indonesia’s renaming of the far southern end of the South China Sea as the North Natuna Sea. The US’ acknowledgement serves to contest China’s influence in Indonesia. Gifts from the two superpowers are the desired middle way.

    Joko Widodo meeting Xi Jinping, March 2015. (Public domain)

    The Loftusian idea––“memory is a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again”––illustrates the way in which the Indonesian elite interacts with the concept of jalan tengah. This time, Indonesia blurs its remembrance of non-alignment and bends its strategic autonomy like a coconut tree. This is the twenty first century reinterpretation on how Indonesia exercises the “free” element in its post-colonial foreign policy.

    The other significance of jalan tengah is ontological. It brings to mind Indonesia’s embrace of duality, like a wayang kulit (shadow puppet) that embodies both ascetic and cunning quality. In Hatta’s 1951 address, he noted that “As a nation which has struggled against imperialism and colonialism for many a decade, we have the highest ideals concerning the fundamental principles of life. We want to see our nation live in prosperity and well-being, free from want”. Hatta then ventured on to explain how Indonesia’s economy should contain elements of socialism and capitalism (a blend known as koperasi or a cooperative), a system that prevails to date. Embracing duality perhaps partly explains why it is difficult for Indonesia to let go of its authoritarian tendency for control despite being a democratic and decentralised state. Similarly, in navigating the great power rivalry, jalan tengah is a balancing act, not against the US or China, but over its own conviction: the extent to which Indonesia is willing to compromise its strategic autonomy.

    The post Indonesia’s Jalan tengah in the new age of great power rivalries appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • As the great power rivalry intensifies, many pundits have already indicated that preserving autonomy is wishful thinking for a middle power such as Indonesia. But while the room for hedging has undoubtedly shrunk, Indonesia will continue to find ways to preserve a significant measure of its strategic autonomy. On September 2, 1948, when Mohammad Hatta, Indonesia’s first vice president, uttered the phrase mendayung diantara dua karang (translated as navigating or rowing between two reefs), the fear of having to succumb to another period of subjugation was just a bitter fruit that they were not willing to swallow.

    The fear of a loss of agency is alive and well in Indonesia’s modern collective unconscious as a post-colonial state. But as Leonard Sebastian and I noted in our essay: “remembrance of things past is not necessarily a preference for historical precedence. This is not the basis of a “free and active” (bebas aktif) foreign policy strategy”. My referencing Proust’s À la recherche du temps perdu (In Search of Lost Time) carries the subtext of the fluidity of memory: there are things that we remember, but there are things that we remember well.

    The word “mendayung” or “navigate” evokes a textural imagination of the struggle for independence, and Indonesians remember that “navigate” is the essence of our bebas aktif foreign policy doctrine. Mendayung precludes alignment. As Hatta posited: “Do we, Indonesians, in the struggle for the freedom of our people and our country, only have to choose between Russia and America?”

    President Joko Widodo in a bilateral meeting with the President of the United States, Joe Biden at COP26 in 2021. (Public domain)

    What we remember well is that to “navigate” is about playing two superpowers off against each other; this is what Indonesia culturally regards as jalan tengah, translated as the middle way.

    What is jalan tengah, and why should we care?

    Jalan tengah is not a middle position. It is about taking risks. When Indonesia withdrew from the UN in 1965, it rejected Kissinger’s attempts to persuade Jakarta to normalise its relationship with Beijing following the US-China rapprochement in 1972, and organised military exercises in the Natunas in 1996, 2016, 2020, and 2021 against one of its biggest investors––China. These are not risk averse attitudes.

    Jalan tengah refers to a constant searching for a new equilibrium, conjuring the cultural imagery of a Pinisi ship as it navigates the ocean. The goal is twofold: to preserve strategic autonomy and to exploit a great power rivalry to its advantage. Such underlying principles perhaps inspired former Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa’s “dynamic equilibrium.” Natalegawa’s postulation was a modern reinterpretation of jalan tengah, magnifying the aspect of preserving Indonesia’s voice in regional matters. As Natalegawa’s jargon was abandoned during Joko Widodo’s administration, the underlying principle of jalan tengah continues to be prominent but reinterpreted.

    As the inherently unstable multipolarity comes of age, jalan tengah teaches two lessons about Indonesia–––one of policy and another of identity.

    Public opinion and civil society: shaping Indonesia’s South China Sea Policy?

    Public opinion should force the Indonesian government to consider and adjust its policies and responses to China in the South China Sea.

    Jalan tengah makes Indonesia’s concept of strategic autonomy pliable. Under the Jokowi presidency, Indonesia has been willing to sacrifice some degree of autonomy by accepting Chinese investments for the sake of economic development. There are two revealing examples. First, Jakarta started to design (in some instances) an unfair bidding process for investments that only China could access. Second, violating its own domestic law that forbids foreign investors from owning shares totalling greater than 49 per cent, Jakarta made an exception for a consortium of Chinese companies, Shanghai Decent Investment (Group) Co., Ltd., to own 66.25 per cent of the shares in Indonesia’s Morowali Industrial Park (IMIP). (IMIP is the biggest cluster of Chinese investments in Indonesia to date.)

    The two examples are not a sign of China’s success in buying Indonesia’s acquiescence. In fact, Beijing has accepted many conditions imposed by Jakarta, such as the elimination of sovereign guarantees in some high-profile investments (e.g., Jakarta-Bandung High Speed Rail). Moreover, Jakarta continues to contest the legality of China’s traditional fishing ground claim in the Natunas.

    Indonesia’s decision to gamble with a degree of its strategic autonomy should thus be regarded as the latest reinterpretation of what jalan tengah entails. The gambit of compromising autonomy is also a tactic to entice the U.S. to start paying attention to Indonesia. This has borne fruit. Washington has acknowledged Indonesia’s renaming of the far southern end of the South China Sea as the North Natuna Sea. The US’ acknowledgement serves to contest China’s influence in Indonesia. Gifts from the two superpowers are the desired middle way.

    Joko Widodo meeting Xi Jinping, March 2015. (Public domain)

    The Loftusian idea––“memory is a living thing that changes shape, expands, shrinks, and expands again”––illustrates the way in which the Indonesian elite interacts with the concept of jalan tengah. This time, Indonesia blurs its remembrance of non-alignment and bends its strategic autonomy like a coconut tree. This is the twenty first century reinterpretation on how Indonesia exercises the “free” element in its post-colonial foreign policy.

    The other significance of jalan tengah is ontological. It brings to mind Indonesia’s embrace of duality, like a wayang kulit (shadow puppet) that embodies both ascetic and cunning quality. In Hatta’s 1951 address, he noted that “As a nation which has struggled against imperialism and colonialism for many a decade, we have the highest ideals concerning the fundamental principles of life. We want to see our nation live in prosperity and well-being, free from want”. Hatta then ventured on to explain how Indonesia’s economy should contain elements of socialism and capitalism (a blend known as koperasi or a cooperative), a system that prevails to date. Embracing duality perhaps partly explains why it is difficult for Indonesia to let go of its authoritarian tendency for control despite being a democratic and decentralised state. Similarly, in navigating the great power rivalry, jalan tengah is a balancing act, not against the US or China, but over its own conviction: the extent to which Indonesia is willing to compromise its strategic autonomy.

    The post Indonesia’s Jalan tengah in the new age of great power rivalries appeared first on New Mandala.

    This post was originally published on New Mandala.

  • Aircraft to be delivered in multirole tanker and transport configuration. Letter of Intent for four additional aircraft. The Indonesia Ministry of Defence has placed an order for two Airbus A400M aircraft in multirole tanker and transport configuration. The contract, which will become effective in 2022, will bring the total number of A400M operators to ten […]

    The post Indonesia Ministry of Defence orders two Airbus A400Ms appeared first on Asian Military Review.

    This post was originally published on Asian Military Review.

  • The following article by Edward Curtin on the life of President John F. Kennedy, and his assassination on this date, November 22, 1963, is the lead piece in the eighth issue of Garrison: The Journal of History and Deep Politics that has just been published: “The Political Assassinations of the 1960s.” From JFK, RFK, MLK, and Malcolm X, to Hammarskjold and Lumumba, the 1960s were a tragic period when the CIA took over the United States and profoundly changed the course of history, and Garrison is indispensable for understanding that history and its importance for today.

    *****

    Despite a treasure trove of new research and information having emerged over the last fifty-eight years, there are many people who still think who killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and why are unanswerable questions. They have drunk what Dr. Martin Schotz has called “the waters of uncertainty” that results “in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance that is.”1

    Then there are others who cling to the Lee Harvey Oswald “lone-nut” explanation proffered by the Warren Commission.

    Both these groups tend to agree, however, that whatever the truth, unknowable or allegedly known, it has no contemporary relevance but is old-hat, ancient history, stuff for conspiracy-obsessed people with nothing better to do. The general thinking is that the assassination occurred more than a half-century ago, so let’s move on.

    Nothing could be further from the truth, for the assassination of JFK is the foundational event of modern American history, the Pandora’s box from which many decades of tragedy have sprung.

    Pressured to Wage War

    From the day he was sworn in as President on January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy was relentlessly pressured by the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency, and by many of his own advisers to wage war – clandestine, conventional, and nuclear.

    To understand why and by whom he was assassinated on November 22, 1963, one needs to apprehend this pressure and the reasons why President Kennedy consistently resisted it, as well as the consequences of that resistance.

    It is a key to understanding the current state of our world today and why the United States has been waging endless foreign wars and creating a national security surveillance state at home since JFK’s death.

    A War Hero Who Was Appalled By War

    It is very important to remember that Lieutenant John Kennedy was a genuine Naval war hero in WW II, having risked his life and been badly injured while saving his men in the treacherous waters of the South Pacific after their PT boat was sunk by a Japanese destroyer. His older brother Joe and his brother-in-law Billy Hartington had died in the war, as had some of his boat’s crew members.

    As a result, Kennedy was extremely sensitive to the horrors of war, and, when he first ran for Congress in Massachusetts in 1946, he made it explicitly clear that avoiding another war was his number one priority. This commitment remained with him and was intensely strengthened throughout his brief presidency until the day he died, fighting for peace.

    Despite much rhetoric to the contrary, this anti-war stance was unusual for a politician, especially during the 1950s and 1960s. Kennedy was a remarkable man, for even though he assumed the presidency as somewhat of a cold warrior vis-à-vis the Soviet Union in particular, his experiences in office rapidly chastened that stance. He very quickly came to see that there were many people surrounding him who relished the thought of war, even nuclear war, and he came to consider them as very dangerous.

    A Prescient Perspective

    Yet even before he became president, in 1957, then Senator Kennedy gave a speech in the U.S. Senate that sent shock waves throughout Washington, D.C. and around the world. 2 He came out in support of Algerian independence from France and African liberation generally and against colonial imperialism. As chair of the Senate’s African Subcommittee in 1959, he urged sympathy for African independence movements as part of American foreign policy. He believed that continued support of colonial policies would only end in more bloodshed because the voices of independence would not be denied, nor should they be.

    That speech caused an international uproar, and in the U.S.A. Kennedy was harshly criticized by Eisenhower, Nixon, John Foster Dulles, and even members of the Democratic party, such as Adlai Stevenson and Dean Acheson. But it was applauded in Africa and the Third World.

    Yet JFK continued throughout his 1960 presidential campaign raising his voice against colonialism throughout the world and for free and independent African nations. Such views were anathema to the foreign policy establishment, including the CIA and the burgeoning military industrial complex that President Eisenhower belatedly warned against in his Farewell Address, delivered nine months after approving the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in March 1960; this juxtaposition revealed the hold the Pentagon and CIA had, and has, on sitting presidents, as the pressure for war became structurally systemized.

    Patrice Lumumba

    One of Africa’s anti-colonial and nationalist leaders was the charismatic Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. In June, 1960, he had become the first democratically elected leader of the Congo, a country savagely raped and plundered for more than half a century by Belgium’s King Leopold II for himself and multinational mining companies. Kennedy’s support for African independence was well-known and especially feared by the CIA, who, together with Brussels, considered Lumumba, and Kennedy for supporting him, as threats to their interests in the region.

    So, three days before JFK’s inauguration, together with the Belgian government, the CIA had Lumumba brutally assassinated after torturing and beating him. According to Robert Johnson, a note taker at a National Security Council meeting in August 1960, Lumumba’s assassination had been approved by President Eisenhower when he gave Allen Dulles, the Director of the CIA, the approval to “eliminate” Lumumba. Johnson disclosed that in a 1975 interview that was discovered in 2000.3

    On January 26, 1961, when Dulles briefed the new president on the Congo, he did not tell JFK that they already had Lumumba assassinated nine days before. This was meant to keep Kennedy on tenterhooks to teach him a lesson. On February 13, 1961, Kennedy received a phone call from his UN ambassador Adlai Stevenson informing him of Lumumba’s death. There is a photograph by White House photographer Jacques Lowe of the horror-stricken president sitting in the oval office answering that call that is harrowing to view. It was an unmistakable portent of things to come, a warning for the president.

    Dag Hammarskjöld, Indonesia, and Sukarno

    One of Kennedy’s crucial allies in his efforts to support third-world independence was United Nations’ Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld. Hammarskjöld had been deeply involved in peacekeeping in the Congo as well as efforts to resolve disputes in Indonesia, both important countries central to JFK’s concerns. Hammarskjöld was killed on September 18, 1961 while on a peacekeeping mission to the Congo. Substantial evidence exists that he was assassinated and that the CIA and Allen Dulles were involved. Kennedy was devastated to lose such an important ally.4

    Kennedy’s strategy involved befriending Indonesia as a Cold War ally as a crucial aspect of his Southeast Asian policy of dealing with Laos and Vietnam and finding peaceful resolutions to other smoldering Cold War conflicts. Hammarskjöld was also central to these efforts. The CIA, led by Dulles, strongly opposed Kennedy’s strategy in Indonesia. In fact, Dulles and the CIA had been involved in treacherous maneuverings in resource rich Indonesia for decades. President Kennedy supported the Indonesian President Sukarno, while Dulles opposed him since he stood for Indonesian independence.

    Just two days before Kennedy was killed on November 22, 1963, he had accepted an invitation from Indonesian President Sukarno to visit that country the following spring. The aim of the visit was to end the conflict (Konfrontasi) between Indonesia and Malaysia and to continue Kennedy’s efforts to support post-colonial Indonesia with non-military economic and development aid. His goal was to end conflict throughout Southeast Asia and assist the growth of democracy in newly liberated post-colonial countries worldwide.

    Of course, JFK never made it to Indonesia in 1964, and his peaceful strategy to bring Indonesia to America’s side and to ease tensions in the Cold War was never realized, thanks to Allen Dulles and the CIA.  And, Kennedy’s proposed withdrawal of American military advisers from Vietnam, which, in part, was premised on success in Indonesia, was quickly reversed by Lyndon Johnson after JFK’s murder and within a short time hundreds of thousand American combat troops were sent to Vietnam. In Indonesia, Sukarno would be forced out and replaced by General Suharto, who would rule with an iron fist for the next 30 years. Soon, both countries would experience mass slaughter engineered by Kennedy’s opponents in the CIA and Pentagon.5

    The Bay of Pigs

    In mid-April 1961, less than three months into his presidency, a trap was set for President Kennedy by the CIA and its director, Allen Dulles, who knew of Kennedy’s reluctance to invade Cuba. They assumed the new president would be forced by circumstances at the last minute to send in U.S. Navy and Marine forces to back the invasion that they had planned. The CIA and generals wanted to oust Fidel Castro, and in pursuit of that goal, trained a force of Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. This had started under President Eisenhower and Vice President Nixon. Kennedy refused to go along with sending in American troops and the invasion was roundly defeated. The CIA, military, and Cuban exiles bitterly blamed Kennedy.

    But it was all a sham. Classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned the date of the invasion more than a week in advance and had informed Cuban Prime Minister Fidel Castro, but—and here is a startling fact that should make people’s hair stand on end—the CIA never told the President. The CIA knew the invasion was probably doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway.

    Why? So, they could blame JFK for the failure afterwards.

    Kennedy later said to his friends Dave Powell and Ken O’Donnell, “They were sure I’d give in to them and send the go-ahead order to the [Navy’s aircraft carrier] Essex. They couldn’t believe that a new president like me wouldn’t panic and save his own face. Well, they had me figured all wrong.”6

    This treachery set the stage for events to come. Sensing but not knowing the full extent of the set-up, Kennedy fired CIA Director Allen Dulles (who, as in a bad joke, was later named to the Warren Commission investigating JFK’s assassination) and his assistant, General Charles Cabell (whose brother, Earle Cabell, to make a bad joke absurd, was the mayor of Dallas on the day Kennedy was killed.) It was later discovered that Earle Cabell was a CIA asset.7

    JFK said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” Not sentiments to endear him to a secretive government within a government whose power was growing exponentially.8

    Kennedy Responds After the Bay of Pigs Treachery

    The stage was now set for events to follow as JFK, now even more suspicious of the military-intelligence people around him, and in opposition to nearly all his advisers, consistently opposed the use of force in U.S. foreign policy.

    In 1961, despite the Joint Chiefs’ demand to put combat troops into Laos – advising 140,000 by the end of April – Kennedy bluntly insisted otherwise as he ordered Averell Harriman, his representative at the Geneva Conference, “Did you understand? I want a negotiated settlement in Laos. I don’t want to put troops in.”9   The president knew that Laos and Vietnam were linked issues, and since Laos came first on his agenda, he was determined to push for a neutral Laos.

    Also in 1961, he refused to accede to the insistence of his top generals to give them permission to use nuclear weapons in a dispute with the Soviet Union over Berlin and Southeast Asia. Walking out of a meeting with his top military advisors, Kennedy threw his hands in the air and said, “These people are crazy.” 10

    In March 1962, the CIA, in the person of legendary operative, Edward Lansdale, and with the approval of every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, presented the president with a pretext for a U.S. invasion of Cuba. Code-named Operation Northwoods, the false-flag plan called for innocent people to be shot in the U.S., boats carrying Cuban refugees to be sunk and a terrorism campaign to be launched in Miami, Washington D.C., and other places, all to be blamed on the Castro government so that the public would be outraged and call for an invasion of Cuba. 11  

    Kennedy was appalled and rejected this pressure to manipulate him into agreeing to terrorist attacks on Americans that could later be used against him. He already knew that his life was in danger and that the CIA and military were tightening a noose around his neck. But he refused to yield.

    As early as June 26, 1961, in a White House meeting with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s spokesperson, Mikhail Kharlamov, and Khrushchev’s son-in-law, Alexei Adzhubei, when asked by Kharlamov why he wasn’t moving faster to advance relations between the two countries, JFK said “You don’t understand this country. If I move too fast on U.S.-Soviet relations, I’ll either be thrown into an insane asylum, or be killed.”12  

    JFK refused to bomb and invade Cuba as the military wished during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. The Soviets had placed offensive nuclear missiles and more than 30,000 support troops in Cuba to prevent another U.S.-led invasion. American aerial photography had detected the missiles. This was understandably unacceptable to the U.S. government. While being urged by the Joint Chiefs and his trusted advisors to order a preemptive nuclear strike on Cuba, JFK knew that a diplomatic solution was the only way out as he wouldn’t accept the death of hundreds of millions of people that would likely follow a series of nuclear exchanges with the Soviet Union. Only his brother, Robert, and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stood with him in opposing the use of nuclear weapons. Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon and Rand Corporation analyst, reported a coup atmosphere in the Pentagon as Kennedy chose to settle rather than attack.13   In the end, after thirteen incredibly tense days of brinksmanship, Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev miraculously found a way to resolve the crisis and prevent the use of those weapons.

    Afterwards, JFK told his friend John Kenneth Galbraith that “I never had the slightest intention of doing so.”14

    The Fateful Year 1963

    In June, 1963, JFK gave a historic speech at American University in which he called for the total abolishment of nuclear weapons, the end of the Cold War and the “Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war,” and movement toward “general and complete disarmament.” 15  

    A few months later he signed a Limited Test Ban Treaty with Nikita Khrushchev. 16

    In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum 263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965. 17

    All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev via Saturday Evening Post editor and anti-nuclear weapon advocate, Norman Cousins, Soviet agent Georgi Bolshakov,18 and Pope John XXIII,19 as well as with Cuba’s Prime Minister Fidel Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. Of course, secret was not secret when the CIA was involved.

    Kennedy, deeply disturbed by the near nuclear catastrophe of the Cuban missile crisis, was determined to open back channel communications to make sure such a near miss never happened again. He knew fault lay on both sides, and that one slip-up or miscommunication could initiate a nuclear holocaust.  He was determined, therefore, to try to open lines of communications with his enemies.

    Jean Daniel was going to Cuba to interview Fidel Castro, but before he did he interviewed Kennedy on October 24, 1963.  Kennedy, knowing Daniel would tell Castro what he said, asked Daniel if Castro realizes that “through his fault the world was on the verge of nuclear war in October 1962… .or even if he cares about it.”  But he also added, to soften the message:

    I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption. I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we will have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear. 20

    Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top Pentagon generals. These clear refusals to go to war with Cuba, to emphasize peace and negotiated solutions to conflicts rather than war, to order the withdrawal of all military personnel from Vietnam, to call for an end to the Cold War, and his willingness to engage in private, back-channel communications with Cold War enemies marked Kennedy as an enemy of the national security state. They were on a collision course.

    The Assassination on November 22, 1963

    After going through the Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis and many other military cliffhangers, Kennedy underwent a deep metanoia, a spiritual transformation, from Cold Warrior to peacemaker. He came to regard the generals who advised him as devaluing human life and hell-bent on launching nuclear wars. And he was well aware that his growing resistance to war had put him on a dangerous collision course with those generals and the CIA. On numerous occasions, he spoke of the possibility of a military coup d’état against him.

    The night before his trip to Dallas, he told his wife, “But, Jackie, if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it.”21  

    And we know that nobody did try to stop it because they had planned his execution from multiple locations to assure its success.

    Who Killed Him?

    If the only things you read, watched, or listened to since 1963 were the mainstream corporate media (MSM), you would be convinced that the official explanation for JFK’s assassination, the Warren Commission, was correct in essentials. You would be wrong, because those corporate media have for all these years served as mouthpieces for the government, most notably the CIA that infiltrated and controlled them long ago under a secret program called Operation Mockingbird.22 In 1977, celebrated Watergate journalist, Carl Bernstein, published a 25,000-word cover story for Rolling Stone, “The CIA and the Media,” in which he published the names of many journalists and media, such as The New York Times, CBS, Time, Newsweek, etc., who worked hand in glove with the CIA for decades. Ironically, or as part of “a limited hangout” (spy talk for admitting some truths while concealing deeper ones), this article can be found at the CIA’s own website.

    Total control of information requires media complicity, and with the JFK assassination, and in all matters they consider important, the CIA and the MSM are unified.  23  Such control extends to literature, arts, and popular culture as well as news. Frances Stonor Saunders comprehensively documents this in her 1999 book, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters24 and Joel Whitney followed this up in 2016 with Finks: How the CIA Tricked the World’s Best Writers, with particular emphasis on the complicity of the CIA and the famous literary journal The Paris Review.  Such revelations are retrospective, of course, but only the most naïve would conclude such operations are a thing of the past.

    The Warren Commission claimed that the president was shot by an ex-Marine named Lee Harvey Oswald, firing three bullets from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository as Kennedy’s car was already two hundred and fifty feet past and driving away from him. But this is patently false for many reasons, including the bizarre claim that one of these bullets, later termed “the magic bullet,” passed through Kennedy’s body and zigzagged up and down, left and right, striking Texas Governor John Connolly who was sitting in the front seat and causing seven wounds in all, only to be found later in pristine condition on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital.25  And, any lone assassin looking out the 6th floor window would have taken the perfect shot as the limousine approached within forty feet of the TSBD on Houston St.

    The absurdity of the government’s claim, a ballistic fairy tale, was the key to its assertion that Oswald killed Kennedy. It was visually shattered and rendered ridiculous by the famous Zapruder film that clearly shows the president being shot from the front right, and, as the right front of his head explodes, he is violently thrown back and to his left as Jacqueline Kennedy climbs on to the car’s trunk to retrieve a piece of her husband’s skull and brain.

    This video evidence is clear and simple proof of a conspiracy.26 

    Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?

    But there is another way to examine it.

    If Lee Harvey Oswald, the man The Warren Commission said killed JFK, was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin or not an assassin at all. There is a wealth of evidence to show how, from the very start, Oswald was moved around the globe by the CIA like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters by Jack Ruby two days later.

    James W. Douglass, in JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, the most important book on the matter, asks this question:

    Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?

    This is a key question.

    After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret, a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission) and being trained in the Russian language, Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. 27   After denouncing the U.S., rejecting his American citizenship, working at a Soviet factory in Minsk, and taking a Russian wife—during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union—he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey, by Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-Communist with extensive intelligence connections recommended by the State Department.  28

    Oswald passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where, at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a photography and graphic arts company that worked on top secret maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba.

    Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt. In 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assassinations’ investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, de Mohrenschildt allegedly committed suicide.

    Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April, 1963 where he got a job at the Reily Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reily. The Reily Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Banister, a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Bureau, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying weapons, money, and training to anti-Castro paramilitaries. Oswald then went to work with Banister and the CIA paramilitaries.

    From this time up until the assassination, Oswald engaged in all sorts of contradictory activities, one day portraying himself as pro-Castro, the next day as anti-Castro, many of these theatrical performances being directed from Banister’s office. It was as though Oswald, on the orders of his puppet masters, was   enacting multiple and antithetical roles in order to confound anyone intent on deciphering the purposes behind his actions and to set him up as a future “assassin” or “patsy.”

    James Douglass persuasively argues that Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”29

    When Oswald moved to New Orleans in April, 1963, de Mohrenschildt exited the picture, having asked the CIA for and been indirectly given a $285,000 contract to do a geological survey for Haitian dictator “Papa Doc” Duvalier, which he never did, but for which he was paid.30

    Ruth and Michael Paine then entered the scene on cue. Ruth had been introduced to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. In September, 1963, Ruth Paine drove from her sister’s house in Virginia to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald and bring her to Dallas to live with her, where Lee also stayed on weekends. Back in Dallas, Ruth Paine conveniently arranged a job for Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Book Depository, where he began work on October 16, 1963.

    Ruth, along with Marina Oswald, was the Warren Commission’s critically important witness against Oswald. Allen Dulles, despite his earlier firing by JFK, got appointed to a key position on the Warren Commission.  He questioned the Paines in front of it, studiously avoiding any revealing questions, especially ones that could disclose his personal connections to the Paines. For Michel Paine’s mother, therefore Ruth’s mother-in-law, Ruth Paine Forbes Young, was a close friend of his old mistress, Mary Bancroft, who worked as a spy with Dulles during WW II. Bancroft and he had been invited guests at Ruth Paine Forbes Young’s private island off Cape Cod.

    Ruth and Michael Paine had extensive intelligence connections. Thirty years after the assassination, a document was declassified showing Ruth Paine’s sister Sylvia worked for the CIA. Her father traveled throughout Latin America on an Agency for International Development (notorious for CIA front activities) contract and filed reports that went to the CIA. Her husband Michael’s step-father, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, a major military supplier for the Vietnam War, and Michael’s job there gave him a security clearance.

    From late September through November 22nd, various “Oswalds” were later reported to have simultaneously been seen from Mexico City to Dallas. Two Oswalds were arrested in the Texas Theater, the real one taken out the front door and an impostor out the back.

    As Douglass says:

    There were more Oswalds providing evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald than the Warren Report could use or even explain.31

    Even J. Edgar Hoover knew that Oswald impostors were used, as he told LBJ concerning Oswald’s alleged visit to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. He later called this CIA ploy, “the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico . . . their (CIA’s) double-dealing,” something that he couldn’t forget. 32

    It was apparent to anyone paying close attention that a very intricate and deadly game was being played at high levels in the shadows.

    We know Oswald was blamed for the President’s murder. But if one fairly follows the trail of the crime, it becomes blatantly obvious that government forces were at work. Douglass and others have amassed layer upon layer of evidence to show how this had to be so.

    Who Had the Power to Withdraw the President’s Security?

    To answer this essential question is to finger the conspirators and to expose, in Vincent Salandria’s words, “the false mystery concealing state crimes.”33

    Neither Oswald, the mafia nor anti-Castro Cubans could have withdrawn most of the security that day. Sheriff Bill Decker ordered all his deputies “to take no part whatsoever in the security of that [presidential] motorcade.” 34 Police Chief Jesse Curry did the same for Dallas police protection for the president in Dealey Plaza. Both “Chief Curry and Sheriff Decker gave their orders withdrawing security from the president in obedience to orders they had themselves received from the Secret Service.” The Secret Service withdrew the police motorcycle escorts from beside the president’s car where they had been on previous presidential motorcades as well as the day before in Houston and removed agents from the back of the car where they were normally stationed to obstruct gunfire.

    The Secret Service admitted there were no Secret Service agents on the ground in Dealey Plaza to protect Kennedy. But we know from extensive witness testimony that, during and after the assassination, there were people in Dealey Plaza impersonating Secret Service agents who stopped policeman and the public from moving through the area on the Grassy Knoll where some of the shots appeared to come from. The Secret Service approved the fateful, dogleg turn (on a dry run on November 18) where the car, driven by Secret Service agent William Greer, moved at a snail’s pace and came almost to a halt before the final head shot, clear and blatant security violations.  The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded this, not some conspiracy theorist.35

    Who could have squelched the testimony of the many doctors and medical personnel who claimed the president had been shot from the front in his neck and head, testimony contradicting the official story?

    Who could have prosecuted and imprisoned Abraham Bolden, the first African-American Secret Service agent personally brought on to the White House detail by JFK, who warned that he feared the president was going to be assassinated? (Douglass interviewed Bolden seven times and his evidence on the aborted plot to kill JFK in Chicago on November 2 is a story little known but extraordinary in its implications.)

    The list of all the people who turned up dead, the evidence and events manipulated, the inquiry squelched, distorted, and twisted in an ex post facto cover-up clearly point to forces within the government, not rogue actors without institutional support.

    The evidence for a conspiracy organized at the deepest levels of the intelligence apparatus is overwhelming. James Douglass presents it in such depth and so logically that only one hardened to the truth would not be deeply moved and affected by his book, JFK and the Unspeakable.

    But there is more from him and other researchers who have cut the Gordian knot of this false mystery with a few brief strokes.

    Oswald, The Preordained Patsy

    Three examples will suffice to show that Lee Harvey Oswald, working as part of a U.S. Intelligence operation, was set up to take the blame for the assassination of President Kennedy, and that when he said in police custody that he was “a patsy,” he was speaking truthfully. These examples make it clear that Oswald was deceived by his intelligence handlers and had been chosen without his knowledge, long before the murder, to take the blame as a lone, crazed killer.

    First, Kennedy was shot at 12:30 P.M. CT. According to the Warren Report, at 12:45 P.M. a police report was issued for a suspect that perfectly fit Oswald’s description. This was based on the testimony of Howard Brennan, who said he was standing across from the Book Depository and saw a standing white man, about 5’10” and slender, fire a rifle at the president’s car from the sixth-floor window. This was blatantly false because photographs taken moments after the shooting show the window open only partially at the bottom about fourteen inches, and it would have been impossible for a standing assassin to be seen “resting against the left windowsill,” (the window sill was a foot from the floor), as Brennan is alleged to have said. He would have therefore had to have been shooting through the glass. The description of the suspect was clearly fabricated in advance to match Oswald’s.

    Then between 1:06 and 1:15 P.M. in the quiet residential Oak Cliff neighborhood of Dallas, Police Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed. Supposedly based on Brennan’s description broadcast over police radio, Tippit had stopped a man fitting the description and this man pulled a gun and shot the officer. Meanwhile, Oswald had returned to his rooming house where his landlady said he left at 1:03 P.M., went outside, and was standing at a northbound bus stop. The Tippet murder took place nine-tenths of a mile away to the south where a witness, Mrs. Higgins, said she heard a gunshot at 1:06 P.M., ran outside, saw Tippit lying in the street and a man running away with a handgun whom she said was not Oswald.

    Oswald is reported to have entered the Texas Theater minutes before the Tippit murder. The concession stand operator, Warren Burroughs, has said he sold him popcorn at 1:15 P.M., which is the time the Warren Report claims Tippit was killed. At 1:50 P.M., Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater and taken out the front door where a crowd and many police cars awaited him, while a few minutes later a second Oswald is secretly taken out the back door of the movie theater. (To read this story of the second Oswald and his movement by the CIA out of Dallas on a military aircraft on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, documented in great detail by James W. Douglass, is an eye-opener.)

    The official narrative of Oswald and the Tippit murder begs credulity, but it serves to “show” that Oswald was a killer. 36

    Despite his denials, Oswald, set up for Kennedy’s murder based on a prepackaged description, is arraigned for Tippit’s murder at 7:10 PM. It was not until the next day that he was charged for Kennedy’s.

    The Message to Air Force One

    Secondly, while Oswald is being questioned about Tippit’s murder in the afternoon hours after his arrest, Air Force One has left Dallas for Washington with the newly sworn-in president Lyndon Johnson and the presidential party. Back in D.C., the White House Situation Room is under the personal and direct control of Kennedy’s National Security Advisor, McGeorge Bundy, a man with close CIA ties who had opposed JFK on many matters, including the Bay of Pigs and Kennedy’s order to withdraw from Vietnam.37

    As reported by Theodore White, in The Making of the President 1964, Johnson and the others were informed by the Bundy controlled Situation Room that “there was no conspiracy, learned of the identity of Oswald and his arrest …”38

    Vincent Salandria, one of the earliest and most astute critics of the Warren Commission, put it this way in his book, False Mystery39

    This [announcement from the Situation Room to Air Force One in flight back to Washington, D.C] was the very first announcement of Oswald as the lone assassin. In Dallas, Oswald was not even charged with assassinating the President until 1:30 A.M. the next morning. The plane landed at 5:59 P.M. on the 22nd. At that time  the District Attorney of Dallas, Henry Wade, was stating that “preliminary reports indicated more than one person was involved in the shooting … the electric chair is too good for the killers.” Can there be any doubt that for any government taken by surprise by the assassination — and legitimately seeking the truth concerning it — less than six hours after the time of the assassination was too soon to know there was no conspiracy? This announcement was the first which designated Oswald as the lone assassin….

    I propose the thesis that McGeorge Bundy, when that announcement was issued from his Situation Room, had reason to know that the true meaning of such a message when conveyed to the Presidential party on Air Force One [and to a separate plane with the entire cabinet that had turned around and was headed back over the Pacific Ocean] was not the ostensible message which was being communicated. Rather, I submit that Bundy … was really conveying to the Presidential party the thought that Oswald was being designated the lone assassin before any evidence against him was ascertainable. As a central coordinator of intelligence services, Bundy in transmitting such a message through the Situation Room was really telling the Presidential party that an unholy marriage had taken place between the U.S. Governmental intelligence services and the lone-assassin doctrine. Was he not telling the Presidential party peremptorily, ‘Now, hear this! Oswald is the assassin, the sole assassin. Evidence is not available yet. Evidence will be obtained, or in lieu thereof evidence will be created. This is a crucial matter of state that cannot await evidence. The new rulers have spoken. You, there, Mr. New President, and therefore dispatchable stuff, and you the underlings of a deposed President, heed the message well.’ Was not Bundy’s Situation Room serving an Orwellian double-think function?40

    Oswald’s Prepackaged Life Story

    Finally, Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty adds a third example of the CIA conspiracy for those who need more evidence that the government has lied from the start about the assassination.

    Prouty was Chief of Special Operations in the Pentagon before and during the Kennedy years. He was the liaison between the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, working closely with Director Allen Dulles and others in supporting the clandestine operations of the CIA under military cover. He had been sent out of the country to the South Pole by the aforementioned CIA operative Edward Lansdale (Operation Northwoods) before the Kennedy assassination and was returning on November 22, 1963. On a stopover in Christchurch, New Zealand, he heard a radio report that the president had been killed but knew no details. He was having breakfast with a U.S Congressman at 7:30 AM on November 23, New Zealand time. A short time later, at approximately 4:30 PM Dallas time, November 22, he bought the Christchurch Star 23 November 1963 newspaper and read it together with the Congressman.

    The newspaper reports from the scene said that Kennedy had been killed by bursts of automatic weapons fire, not a single shot rifle, firing three separate shots in 6.8 seconds, as was later claimed for Oswald. But the thing that really startled him was that at a time when Oswald had just been arrested and had not even been charged for the murder of Officer Tippit, there was elaborate background information on Oswald, his time in Russia, his association with Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans, etc. “It’s almost like a book written five years later,” said Prouty. “Furthermore, there’s a picture of Oswald, well-dressed in a business suit, whereas, when he was picked up on the streets of Dallas after the President’s death, he had on some t-shirt or something…

    Who had written that scenario?  Who wrote that script…So much news was already written ahead of time of the murder to say that Oswald killed the President and that he did it with three shots…Somebody had decided Oswald was going to be the patsy…Where did they get it, before the police had charged him with the crime?  Not so much ‘where,’ as ‘why’ Oswald?41

    Prouty, an experienced military man working for the CIA in the Pentagon, accused the military-intelligence “High Cabal” of killing President Kennedy in an elaborate and sophisticated plot and blaming it on Oswald, whom they had begun setting up years in advance.

    The evidence for a government plot to plan, assassinate, cover-up, and choose a patsy in the murder of President John Kennedy is overwhelming.42

    Five years after JFK’s assassination, we would learn, to our chagrin and his glory, that the president’s younger brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, equally brave and unintimidated, would take a bullet to the back of his head in 1968 as he was on his way to the presidency and the pursuit of his brother’s killers. The same cowards struck again.

    Their successors still run the country and must be stopped.

    Epilogue by James W. Douglass

    John F. Kennedy was raised from the death of wealth, power, and privilege. The son of a millionaire ambassador, he was born, raised, and educated to rule the system. When he was elected President, Kennedy’s heritage of power corresponded to his position as head of the greatest national security state in history. But Kennedy, like Lazarus, was raised from the death of that system. In spite of all odds, he became a peacemaker and, thus, a traitor to the system….

    Why? What raised Kennedy from the dead? Why did John Kennedy choose life in the midst of death and by continuing to choose life thus condemn himself to death? I have puzzled over that question while studying the various biographies of Kennedy. May I suggest one source of grace for his resurrection as a peacemaker? In reading his story, one is struck by his devotion to his children. There is no mistaking the depth of love he had for Caroline and John, and the overwhelming pain he and Jacqueline experienced at the death of their son Patrick. Robert Kennedy in his book Thirteen Days has described how his brother saw the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of the future of his children and all children. I believe John Kennedy was at least partially raised from the dead of the national security state by the life of his children. The heroic peacemaking of his final months, with his acceptance of its likely cost in his own death, was, I suspect, partly a result of the universal life he saw in and through them. I think he believed profoundly the words that he gave in his American University address as his foundation for rejecting the Cold War: ‘Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal. 43

    1. History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy, E. Martin Schotz, Kurtz, Ulmer, & DeLucia Book Publishers, 1996.
    2. JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died & Why It Matters, James W. Douglass, Orbis Books, 2008[1][2], p. 8 and p. 212; Destiny Betrayed, James DiEugenio, 2nd Edition, Skyhorse Publishing, 2012, pp. 17-33.
    3. The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, David Talbot, Harper Collins, 2015, pp. 375389. MORI DocID: 1451843 p. 464, p. 473 of “The CIA’s Family Jewels,” 16 May 1973, The National Security Archives.
    4. Investigation into the condition and circumstances resulting in the tragic death of Dag Hammarskjold and of members of the party accompanying him (United Nations General Assembly document,) Judge Mohamed Chande Othman, September 5, 2017, p. 49 and 50, Dag Hammarskjöld Plane Crash Recent Developments, UN Association, Westminster Branch UK.
    5. Edward Curtin interviews Greg Poulgrain on The Incubus of Intervention: Conflicting Indonesian Strategies of John F. Kennedy and Allen Dulles, Global Research, July 22, 2016;  Chapter 2 – JFK, Dulles and Hammarskjöld of The Incubus of Intervention; Greg Poulgrain, JFK vs Allen Dulles: Battleground Indonesia, Simon & Schuster, 2020.
    6. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., American Values, Harper Collins, 2018, p. 117.
    7. Dallas Mayor During JFK Assassination Was CIA Asset, Who.What.Why, August 2, 2017.
    8. Peter Kornbluh confirmed this in a phone conversation with the author in May 2000. See The ULTRASENSITIVE Bay of Pigs Newly Released Portions of Taylor Commission Report Provide Critical New Details on Operation Zapata, National Security Archive Briefing Book No. 29, May 3, 2000.
    9. Averell Harriman interviewed in Charles Stevenson, The End Of Nowhere; American Policy Toward Laos Since 1954, 1972, p. 154.
    10. Richard Reeves, President Kennedy: Profile of Power, Simon & Schuster, 1994, p. 222.
    11. Pentagon Proposed Pretexts for Cuba Invasion in 1962, FOIA documents at National Security Archive.
    12. Pierre Salinger, P.S.: A Memoir, St. Martin’s Press, 1995, p. 253.
    13. Talbot, op. cit., p. 453.
    14. John Kenneth Galbraith, A Life in Our Times, Houghton Mifflin, 1981, p. 388.
    15. American University Commencement Address, President Kennedy, June 10, 1963.
    16. President Kennedy Radio and TV Address to the American People on the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, July 26, 1963; Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under Water, signed at Moscow August 5, 1963, entered into force October 10, 1963.
    17. See James K. Galbraith, “Exit Strategy,” Boston Review, October/November 2003.
    18. Pierre Salinger, With Kennedy, Doubleday & Co., 1966, p. 198.
    19. See Norman Cousins, The Improbable Triumvirate: John F. Kennedy, Pope John, Nikita Khrushchev – An Asterisk to the History of a Hopeful Year, 1962-1963, W.W. Norton & Co., 1972.
    20. Jean Daniel, “Unofficial Envoy – An Historic Report from Two Capitals,” The New Republic, December 14, 1963.
    21. Kenneth P. O’Donnell and David F. Powers, “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye;” Memories of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Little Brown, 1972, p. 25.
    22. See Operation Mockingbird, the only FOIA-released-by-CIA documents at The Black Vault.  Carl Bernstein, “THE CIA AND THE MEDIA – How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up.” Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.
    23. James F. Tracy, “The CIA and the Media: 50 Facts the World Needs to Know,” Global Research/ratical.org, 2018.
    24. Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA And The World Of Arts And Letters, New Press. 1999.  See Also: James Petras, “The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited,” Monthly Review, November 1999.
    25. See Vincent J. Salandria, “The Warren Report?Liberation, March 1965.
    26. Zapruder Film in slow motion (1:33).
    27. Gerald D. McKnight, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, Univ. Of Kansas Press, 2005, review by Jim DiEugenio.
    28. Douglass, op. cit., p. 46.
    29. See James and Elsie Wilcott: CIA Profile in Courage, excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 144-148, 421-422.
    30. Douglass, op. cit., p. 47-48.
    31. See Oswald’s Doubles: How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat, excerpt from JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 286-303, 350-355, 464-470, 481-483.
    32. Douglass, op. cit., p. 81.
    33. Vincent Salandria, The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes, presentation at the Coalition on Political Assassinations, November 20, 1998.
    34. Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Dean Craig, When They Kill A President, 1971.
    35. Douglass, op. cit., pp. 270-277 and endnote 75 of James Douglass’ 2009 COPA Keynote Address.  Secret Service Final Survey Report for the November 21, 1963, visit by President Kennedy to Houston, cited in Appendix to Hearings before the HSCA, vol. 11, p. 529.
    36. Douglass, op. cit., pp. 287-304.
    37. Talbot, op.cit., pp. 407-8.  &  NSAM 263 (document 194), Foreign Relations of the United States, Vietnam v. IV, Aug-Dec’63.
    38. Theodore White, The Making of the President, 1964, Atheneum, 1965, p. 33.  See also Let Us Begin Anew: An Oral History of the Kennedy Presidency, Gerald S. Strober, Debra Strober,  Perennial, 1993, pp. 450-451.
    39. False Mystery, Essays on the JFK Assassination by Vincent Salandria, rat haus reality press, 2017.
    40. Bundy Continued to Shape Hawkish Policies, in Vincent J. Salandria, “The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Model of Explanation,” Computers and Automation, December 1971, pp. 32-40.
    41. David T. Ratcliffe, Understanding Special Operations: 1989 Interview with L. Fletcher Prouty, rat haus reality press, 1999, pp. 214-215.
    42. See The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection at The National Archives.
    43. James Douglass, “The Assassinations of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy in the Light of the Fourth Gospel,” Sewanee Theological Review, 1998.
    The post President John F. Kennedy: His Life and Public Assassination first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Edward Curtin.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.