Looking at the asylum issue in retrospect
Pemerintah dan media di Indonesia sekarang lagi
sibuk sibuknya memprotes keras kartun presiden SBY yang diterbitkan
sebuah media Australia tentang masalah Papua.
Mereka bilang itu dibawah standard, sampah, tasteless, nggak sensitif
dan lain** yang intinya mengambing hitamkan media Australia tersebut.
Saking sibuknya, mereka lupa to see this problem in the right
perspective. Kalau mau diurut lagi , penerbitan kartunn di Australia
itu cuman pembalasan atas kartun yang di lebih dulu diterbitkan oleh
Rakyat Merdeka, so kenapa kita ga salain media kita sendiri? God knows..
Yang jelas ada pihak yang akan senang karena karena perang kartun ini mengalihkan atensi publik dari maslah yang sebenarnya, yaitu masalah rakyat Papua! dibawah ini ada dua artikel oleh Todung Mulya Lubis (komnas HAM) dan Jusuf Afandy (CSIS) yang melihat this problem from the correct perspective.
Anyway, whatever people say about those cartoons, I actually enjoy it, both contains sincere opinion and cricism, only not in words, nicely put.
Looking at the asylum issue in retrospect
Jakarta
fuss about the temporary visas granted to 42 Papuans seeking political
asylum in Australia should have stopped by now. Two weeks of wrath is
enough and it is now time for everyone to think clearly about this
matter. The granting of asylum (the Papuans have not received formal
asylum) is quite common in relations between states. International laws
and practices also allow this to take place.
During the years following the fall of Sukarno’s administration and the
collapse of the Indonesian Communist Party, asylum was granted
repeatedly. Many Indonesian citizens obtained asylum from various
Eastern European countries and from China. Then the in early 1980s, a
number of Acehnese also went to Scandinavian countries to seek
political asylum.
Obtaining asylum is an inherent right of all humans when facing
state-sanctioned political persecution (Article 14 of the United
Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights).
Political asylum is, indeed, not provided for in any of the articles in
our amended 1945 Constitution. However, Article 28 of the 1999 Human
Rights Law strongly recognizes the right of a citizen to obtain a
political asylum from another country. Therefore obtaining political
asylum is recognized as a legal right.
The question now is whether those applying for political asylum are
subject to political persecution perpetrated by Indonesian government
apparatuses. We must first examine all the available information; if it
is found that the applicants are not political victims or political
fugitives, the government can always send a note of protest.
however, lies a difference in interpretation that is difficult to
bridge. Usually the final word rests with the country to which a
request for political asylum is submitted. If the Australian
government, through its immigration department, is of the opinion that
there is strong legal reason to believe that these 42 Papuans will face
political persecution in Indonesia, the granting of the visas, with the
possibility of asylum in the future, is justifiable in the light of
international law.
The Indonesian government may feel disappointed and infuriated. The
House of Representatives may be enraged. However, calling for
diplomatic ties to be severed is just grandstanding and will bring no
benefit. The relationship between Indonesia and Australia is one with
its ups and downs, laden with political, economic and cultural burdens.
not, Indonesia and Australia have an interdependence. Look at the
balance of trade between the two countries. Our exports and imports are
quite substantial. In 2005, our total exports to Australia were US$2.2
billion, while imports from Australia stood at $2.6 billion. The same
year also saw a significant amount of Australian investment in
Indonesia. Our challenge is how to promote this trade and invite more
Australian investment.
There are many other things to be improved in the relationship between
Indonesia and Australia. The arrival of Australian tourists in
Indonesia, particularly in Bali, for example, greatly contributes to
Indonesia’s tourist sector. Australia is also where many Indonesians
pursue their studies. Clearly, what is at stake is not insignificant
when we allow our diplomatic relations with Australia to worsen.
we certainly must act with greater wisdom to enable prudent political
and economic calculations. We must not allow ourselves to slip. In the
case of East Timor, when the Australian government was believed to have
"stabbed Indonesia in the back", the government was able to keep its
anger in check. The government should now be able to do likewise.
One important question that we must pose is what is really happening in
Papua and what must be done to resolve the problems there. To say that
everything is all right in Papua is tantamount to lying to yourself.
The recent violence in Papua has not only been related to PT Freeport
Indonesia, although the popular demand that locals should also enjoy
part of Freeport’s wealth is not unfounded.
If Papuans demand that Freeport give them a bigger share of revenue,
this must be given due attention. The government must undertake an
audit to ensure that Papuans really enjoy part of their own riches,
because all these years very little of the portion set aside for Papua
from Freeport’s mining operation has reportedly reached Papuans,
especially those living around the mining area. Where have the funds
allocated by Freeport gone? In any case, the rights of Papuans should
not be curtailed or corrupted, either by the political elite in Papua
or in Jakarta.
Injustices in Papua go beyond the Freeport issue. It is not a secret
that resource-rich Papua has been a target of looting on a massive
scale by both businesspeople and the powers that be. It is easy to see
the disappearance of formerly dense jungles in the province.
Papuans seem to have been drugged in such a way that they have become
voiceless, unable to demand that their social and political rights are
honored. The policy of repression enforced in the province gives little
room for democracy, although the whole country is now starting to
practice democracy.
The law on special autonomy for Papua, which is actually quite
broad-based, has yet to be fully exercised because the political elite
are still worried that full exercise of this autonomy will only
reinforce the sentiment of separatism in Papua.
The long history of desire for freedom cannot just be ignored, and
postponing the exercise of autonomy will only strengthen the network of
separatism in the community. This is the dilemma that we must deal
with, especially given the many parties in international political
networks that encourage the secession of Papua from Indonesia.
Here lies the challenge facing us all. The international community has
reiterated that it recognizes the territorial integrity of Indonesia,
as echoed by John Howard, the Australian prime minister. So with that
guarantee, couldn’t we all join forces to build autonomy in Papua in a
spirit of democracy that would kindle hopes for justice? Otherwise we will continue to see groups of Papuans sailing to Australia seeking asylum.
Indonesia-Australia: A boom and bust relationship?
Jusuf Wanandi, Jakarta
I
want to be blunt, honest and balanced in my view on the problem of the
Papuan asylum seekers. This is what members of the Centre for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) stand for.
Indonesian-Australian relations have been affected by this problem. Is
Australia to blame for it? In the past I have strongly criticized Prime
Minister John Howard as being a gentleman from a small town in 19th
century England who was unaware and not interested in what was
happening in East Asia, Australia’s strategic environment. That was the
period when he ignored Australia’s relations with East Asia, including
the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).
That has since changed, and now Howard fully understands where the "arc
of instabilities" that can affect Australia is located, namely
Southeast Asia, particularly Indonesia, and the South Pacific. This
awareness has become more pronounced after Sept. 11, 2001, as well as
because of the number of failing states in the South Pacific.
The most important security and strategic issue for Australia now is
the security and well-being of Indonesia, because a chaotic and failing
Indonesia would have the most dramatic impact on Australia’s security
and welfare. That includes an interest in maintaining the unity of
Indonesia, including the security and welfare of Papua as part of
Indonesia.
What
Australia is dreading most is if Papua gets into real trouble and tries
to separate from Indonesia. Australia has enough problems with the weak
state of Papua New Guinea and others to the east of PNG, such as
Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Fiji and Nauru. The last thing they need is
the big and nearby Indonesia getting into trouble because of Papua. So,
the accusation from many Indonesian quarters that Australia would like
to see Papua separate from Indonesia is just sheer nonsense.
As a democracy, there are NGOs, a few politicians and some in the
Australian media who might think of separation as a possibility and try
to agitate for that objective. But these are small groups of people,
although vocal.
It should also be recognized that the Papuans who asked for asylum have
not been treated well in Indonesia. Our Constitution allows citizens to
ask for asylum if they so choose. Article 28g of the Constitution and
Article 28 of the 1999 Human Rights Law stipulate that anyone has the
right to ask for political asylum from another country.
Australia’s mistake was timing, as Indonesia is undergoing a fervor of
"narrow" nationalism for a number of reasons: the loss of East Timor in
the background, foreign takeovers of national assets after the
financial crisis and the globalization process (as is also happening in
the U.S., France, South Korea and Thailand).
Economic recovery has not been very successful as unemployment remains
high and is still rising, and there is also the fervor of a new
democracy where politicians, civil society and the press are all trying
to assert their newly found power. The last thing Indonesia needs is
another "sensitive" issue on its plate such as this problem of the
Papuan refugees. Australia is also to blame for not trying to clearly
explain its policy of granting the temporary stay permits before it was
officially announced.
This failure to explain has been taken here as arrogant and
insensitive. It was not understood that the policy of giving asylum is
in accordance with the Treaty on Refugees (which Indonesia has not yet
acceded to) that has been incorporated into Australian law. The law
also ensures that immigration officials cannot be influenced or
pressured by the government (federal or state).
The Australian federal government cannot intervene in the investigation
by immigration officers of the Papuans seeking asylum. Depending on
whether or not the case clearly suggests the Papuans face the
possibility of punishment by their own government, or that their safety
and security are at risk, a decision on the asylum request could be
made quickly or slowly.
In the case of the 43 Papuans, it is very clear, according to Tempo
magazine (April 3-9, 2006), that they have enough reasons to be afraid.
And with all due respect, even if President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is
willing to guarantee their safety if they return to Indonesia, there is
no confidence in the implementation of this guarantee.
In conclusion, it can categorically be said that the Australians are
right in their policy on the 43 Papuan asylum seekers. We could argue
about timing or the need for an explanation before the announcement.
This episode should provide all of us with a real lesson and serve as
an eye-opener that this incident could only have been prevented if we
treated our Papuan citizens with respect and empathy, giving them the
chance to run their province according to the Special Autonomy Law,
educating and training their leaders to enable them to do that, and to
wisely use the greater revenue they receive under the Special Autonomy
Law. And most importantly, the rest of the country should show that
Papuans can be trusted.
The writer is vice chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Jakarta
