Demiliterisasi dan Demokratisasi di Papu

Sofian Munawar Asgart DEMOS, Jakarta

In the context of state life, Ariel Heryanto perceives the military as state apparatus in conducting political violence action that controls and monopolizes state violence. 2 Power holder to defend his/her power often uses the military. This is well practiced by the government of Indonesia during the New Order era. This phenomenon perhaps can be found its justification, at least in two aspects. First, Gramsci hegemony concept that analyzes that stability of power needs violence as one of coercive working mechanism. Second, integrated state concept that centralizes on pseudo unity and unification while destroying diversity for maintaining national integrity. In these two aspects the military becomes representation of repressive state power.

It should be realized that the coming of military to Papua in the beginning has been based on the intention to (do) conflict. When there was a dispute between the Nederland and Indonesia on political status of West Papua, each party conducted show of force. With a motto

1 One of the sections of research report on “Democracy Actor in Indonesia”., The field research was conducted by Sofian Munawar

Asgart with additional data from Charles Benggu, Sali Pelu and Joost Willy Mirino (Jayapura) and Charles Imanuel Komaling and Marthen J. Joweni (Timika).

2 Heryanto, Ariel, 2000. Resistance In Obedience, Mizan, Bandung.

of Tri Komando Rakyat / Three People’s Command (Trikora), Indonesian military which at that time had a base in Amboina (Maluku) was increasingly mobilized until reaching Papua. While Nederland military had prepared itself to have confrontation with Indonesian military. The tension finally could be solved by hand over of Papua to Indonesia through United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA).

It was during that transition time political violence to Papua people began to be carried out through various military operations. It is recorded some operations, such as Operation Mandala, Operation Sadar, Operation Bratayuda, Operation Wibawa, and Operation Pamungkas carried out by Kodam (Area Military Command) XVIII Cendrawasih. Some of these operations are suspected to be the efforts to make the implementation of People Referendum (Pepera) successful. It is not a surprise if later on many people question again the legality of Pepera that it implicated many engineered actions. Even, it is said that this integration process was mixed with military violence leading to the decision of Papua as Military Operation Area (DOM) beginning in 1969 until 1999.

Security approach in Papua that is very excessive turns out to be not only strengthening the status quo. Decision of DOM in Papua also often becomes the interest of the military itself as an object and also project of officer career promotion besides to protect the interest of big companies with reason of state security and national integrity. With reason of security disturbance, suspected Papua people are then detained, intimidated, Security approach in Papua that is very excessive turns out to be not only strengthening the status quo. Decision of DOM in Papua also often becomes the interest of the military itself as an object and also project of officer career promotion besides to protect the interest of big companies with reason of state security and national integrity. With reason of security disturbance, suspected Papua people are then detained, intimidated,

1) Pangdam (Commander of Kodam) XVII Cendrawasih Acub Zainal launched Operation Pamungkas in 1969-1971. In this operation tens of thousands Papua people were killed (in Sorong, Manokwari and Biak). In 1970 in two villages of West Biak, 70 adults were buried alive (Report of TAPOL, London). As a reward for his “achievement’ Acub Zainal was appointed as Governor of West Irian (1972-1974).

2) In 1977 there was a rebellion of Dani community in Jayawijaya. In this incident 3000 people were killed, among others, some were buried alive in several places (Tiom 50, Piramid more than 50 and Kelila 50 persons). Albert Dien evaluated as successful conducting the operation was promoted to take position of Jawawijaya Regent for two periods (1978-1988). Similarly the commander of Kodam Intelligence, JB Wenas, was given a position of regent for the next two periods (1988-1997).

3) Between 1979-1982 ‘Operation Sapu Bersih’ was introduced led by Commander CI. Santoso. This operation was carried out in all West Papua, mainly in border area of RI-Papua New Guinea. In this operation, torture and murder occurred to OPM (Free Papua Organization) members and their families. While the massacre in regions of Arso,

3 See the book: the White Book, Synod GKI Irja, 1993.

Waris, Admisibil and Osibil continued to happen until 1995.

4) In April 1984 a Papua intellectual and anthropologist Arnold Ap and Eduard Mofu were killed by military apparatus in Polda (Regional Police) prison without any legal process.

5) In March 1992 a man from Sarmi (Jayapura) was killed with his head cut off and his body mutilated. The perpetrator was Sarmi Koramil (Division Military Command). 4

6) During 1995-1998 there were massacre and live burial and sexual violence by the military in Oksibil and Admisibil. 5

7) During 1994-1995 tens of Amungme people around Amungme, Damal and Moni areas were killed to protect the operation of PT. Freeport against their rights demand. The perpetrators were Kopasus

(Indonesia Special Force). 6

8) During 1996-1997 an operation was conducted post— Lorenz researcher hostage release. Killings of tens of people occurred in Mapanduma, Nggeselema, Jila, Bela and Alama areas committed by Kopasus and Kodam VIII Trikora. Moreover, burning of residents’ houses, church, and destroying gardens and looting people’s assets. 7

4 See White Book of Synod GKI, 1993.

5 A Report, Justice and Peace, of Jayapura Diocese Catholic Church, 1999.

6 A Report of Bishop Munninghoff, Jayapura, 1995. 7 A Report of GKI Irja, Jayapura Diocese and GKI Irja, 1998.

9) In July 1998 bloody Biak incident occurred where tens of people were killed and hundreds were detained and intimidated by the military. 8

Various actions violating human rights that occurred in Papua for almost 40 years during this integration period has developed Papua community resistance against the military as the representation of repressive and authoritarian state. The violence conducted by the military is not the single cause of the emergence of a kind of “demilitarization” movement and growth of awareness to carry out democracy struggle in Papua land. Then, what are the roots of the problem? Who are the actors carrying out the resistance? What is the resistance map and reposition of democracy movement taking place in Papua? Some of these questions will be tried to describe here.

The Root of the Problem

According to Director of YALI Papua, Robert Mandosir, one of the fundamental problems exist in Papua has a source from a conflict of Natural Resources (SDA). 9 This SDA (natural resources) conflict is enabled to appear considering Papua constitutes one of the four provinces that posses very abundant SDA. One of them is mining commodity that at present is managed by PT. Freeport. Besides the mining asset, Papua also has extra-

8 A Report of ELSHAM Papua, 1999. 9 Interview with Robert Mandosir, Jayapura 25 May 2002.

ordinary forest wealth. The area of forest according forest functional structure (TGHK) reaches more than

37.85 ha. 10 It means 89.69% of the total Papua region area as a whole. Of the said area, 52.6% is production forest,

25.6% is protected forest, 18.37% is PPA forest and the rest is other variety of forest. Up to now, not less than

57 companies (HPH – forest concession business) that carry out ‘exploration’ in Papua area. 11

However, the abundant SDA is not enough for helping to improve Papua community life standard. What happens is on the contrary, poverty and retardation is the community social portrait that appears to be so transparent. Meanwhile, in contrast SDA colossal exploitation in Papua has also deteriorated social cultural dimension. The land, water and forest for Papuan people are not merely economic commodity. In their opinion, the land, forest and water are “a Mother” that they know with the term “Maya”. From this eco-feminism perspective we can understand that when the environment is damaged the whole structure will collapse automatically. It means, if the mother has been damaged then the next generation will vanish because it is the mother who provides protection, regeneration and guarantee of life.

The “cultural awareness” next also influences the emergence of historical awareness that Papua land is indeed different than other Indonesian archipelago. Therefore, there are no other ways to respond to

10 Mansoben, JR, 1999. “Statistics of Forest and Plantation of Irian Jaya Province,” in Sri Mastuti et. Al, 2000. Stretching and Getting

Up, PSPK, Jakarta. 11 More detailed data can be seen in “Statistics of Forest and

Plantation of Papua Province” BPS, 2001.

exploitative, discriminative and repressive attitudes of the government of Indonesia but to perform resistance. Then demilitarization is chosen because as far as Papua integration and the republic of Indonesia is concerned, the military is regarded as the actor with the most role in conducting repression in all lines of life. It is the military that becomes the spearhead and manifestation of all instructions of this centralized republic government. The following description will provide some explanation, why Papua people perform resistance.

Economic Injustice The result of identification study on “Choice of Papua Community’s Priority Needs” conducted by Foker NGO with YAPPIKA and AKATIGA shows that the most dominant motive that becomes the need of Papua people is economic motive (40.6%) 12 . There are some aspects that become the background of that economic need priority motive to emerge. First, extremely limited access to market, so that the people have their own difficulty to market their agricultural produce. Second, there is economic monopoly by outsiders/migrants, so that Papua people themselves have difficulty in growing their economy. Third, SDA exploitation that harms the living environment, and fourth,

a situation where the military is taking side with

investors/capitalists, especially big businesspersons. This constitutes the “micro economic” which makes difficult to grow for economy managed by Native Papua community. While the “macro economic”

12 Foker NGO, 2000. “Free Papua: Background, Root of Problem, Actor’s Perception and Solution Opportunity.

condition is marked with the presence of various imbalances, mainly in development paradigm carried out by the government.

The development paradigm during the administration of the New Order that adopted economic growth and security stability as the highest commander has caused a very extensive implication in people’s life, even worse for Papua people. This development paradigm also has boosted the emergence of fallacy meaning to the real development. Development should be seen as a process, but

it is understood as a product. 13 As a result, the policy and strategy of development becomes very economic

oriented. The orientation of development that only pursues material progress or physical progress utilizing only economic indicators has positioned human being in marginal position. The economic policy implemented in Papua in reality does not take side with the interest of native people, but providing more benefits to ruler, businessperson, and other outsiders. Meanwhile on the other hand, excessive natural resources exploitation has damaged living environment and even caused native residents alienated from their own villages.

The SDA exploitation that occurs in Papua indeed has shown injustice. Because the decision to carry out SDA (land, forest and sea) exploitation --as source of living for majority of Papua people—is conducted by central government without giving attention to the aspiration and interest of Papua people themselves.

13 Interview with Bambang Sugiono, Jayapura, 24 May 2002.

Domination of this decision-making also has an impact to imbalance of income distribution and imbalance of financial distribution between the center and region. In this kind of condition, Papua people feel they are treated as merely objects by the government of Indonesia. More ironically, this domination is carried out with the use of violence. Even when Papua people try to claim their rights, they are always stigmatized as OPM, separatists, or other stigma that makes it difficult to hold a productive dialogue. 14

Tom Beanal, one of the figures of Amungme community said that the first mistake committed by the New Order was neglecting injustice feeling of Papua citizens. 15 In

the case of PT. Freeport, for example, he provided an illustration that adat institution was not respected at all. In the working contract of PT. Freeport and the Government of Indonesia, Papua people were regarded as totally non-existing. With a pretext of state land— according to article 33 of the 1945 Constitution- the government took people’s land arbitrarily. Strangely, for government projects such as transmigration, those who received compensation were new owners, not adat community holders of ulayat/communal right. According to him this was not only a fraud, but also a form of humiliation against the local adat.

The form of injustice in SDA control can also be seen in the efforts of land and forest apportionment. Soeharto’s family and conglomerates from the center have

14 Ibid. 15 Interview with Tom Beanal, Timika 28 May 2002.

apportioned the lands in Papua. Meanwhile, mining company and other HPH (forest concession) companies who were running their business in Papua had to pay ulayat right to them as the new owners. People’s annoyance was then added when they witnessed military apparatus took part in the various business and land apportionment. The military that often promoted themselves as “People Defending Knights” even did the opposite. The military sometimes confiscated people’s land non-hesitantly with the use of article 33 of the 1945 Constitution as their pretext.

Social Cultural Aspect

Socio-culturally Papua people constitute plural society. Even we can say they are the most plural society compared to other ethnic tribes existing in Indonesia. This, among others, can be seen from the number of languages spoken by ethnic tribes in it. According to Muller, although the Papua population is only 0.1% of the world population, they possess 15% of the number of

languages in the world. 16 In this aspect, linguists estimate that the number of languages develop in West

Papua area is more or less 236. This is almost comparable to the number of sub-ethnic living in Papua area.

The general description of Papua cultural diversity above can implicate to the degree of difficulty in unifying the people in one community with similarity and single identity (le’sprit de’corps). It is because each tribe has its own community identity.

16 Muller, 1991 in Tim Kell, The Roots of Acehnese Rebellion, 1989- 1992, Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Besides the language, diversity in Papua is also seen in the existing social organization, especially in its leadership system. In general Papua people know two types of leadership, namely formal (government) and informal (adat and religious) leaders. Formal leaders (omdowafi) are leaders appointed by the government. While adat leaders (to-nowi) are leaders with supports from residents due to their personal capacity.

From some available ethnographic sources, JR. Mansoben constructs typology of Papua traditional leadership system in the following categories:

1) Male leadership with authority. This position is obtained through achievement effort. The source of power in this leadership type is personal ability materialized in some aspects, such as economic success, diplomatic and oration skills, war leading, generous quality and interesting physical appearance. Muyu, Ngulum, Dani, Asmat, Mek and Maibrat people mainly apply this leadership typology.

2) King leadership system. This leadership typology is characterized by leadership position inheritance from parents to the oldest son or younger brother/sister’s son considered to be capable. The communities that support this leadership typology can be found in Raja Ampat Islands, Onim peninsula area in Fak-fak and in Kaimana area.

3) Clan leadership system. The communities who adopt this leadership system generally can be found in the population dwelling in Jayapura bay area, such as Tobati, Enggros, Kayunatu, Nafri people, Sentani lake 3) Clan leadership system. The communities who adopt this leadership system generally can be found in the population dwelling in Jayapura bay area, such as Tobati, Enggros, Kayunatu, Nafri people, Sentani lake

a few or one clan only.

4) Mixed leadership system. Individuals who appear as leaders based on their own capacity, or based on descent. The communities adopt this leadership typology exist in Cendrawasih Bay and north coast of Kepala Burung, such as Waropen, Biak and Meyeh people. 17

However, the cultural mosaic gets fader and fader with time in line with the implementation of authoritarian cultural politics. Through NKRI (the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia) integrality doctrine, the government of Indonesia carries out massive cultural uniformity. Javanese culture that is identically regarded as the national culture then becomes reference.

John Rumbiak, one of the movement figures and intellectuals of Papua evaluates the Old Order and the New Order regimes strongly repressed and prohibited Papua self identity expression as Melanesia family. The adat and culture of Papua people is considered to be primitive so modification is needed in order to be parallel with Javanese culture that has been looked upon as the national culture. According to him this can be seen, among others, from changing the names of cities from Papua native language into “national idioms”, such as

17 Mansoben, JR, in Sri Mastuti, et. All, 2000. Menggeliat dan Bangkit (Stretching and Getting Up), PSPK, Jakarta

Irian Jaya, Jayapura, Jayawijaya, Kuala Kencana, and etc. 18

On the other hand, he regards that Papua people’s culture is often exploited and commercialized for rulers’ interest without considering local cultural supreme values. While in public social relation, discriminative attitude is practiced. Outsiders/strangers often see Papua people as fools, retarded, harsh, bad, primitive, lazy

un-civilized. This stigmatization forms outsiders’ behavior pattern that legalizes the outsiders mainly the military to violate Papua people’s human rights without clear legal consequence. In this context, the military –through Armed Forces’ dual function-is deeply involved in application and expression of cultural politics and at the same time conducting systematic cultural oppression.

Historical Awareness Robin Osborne estimates since 50,000 years ago outsiders from many places have inhabited Papua. According to him, there are three main races that come to Papua, namely Negrito, Papua, and Melanesia. But in its next development, “Melanesia” is more often used to describe the descendants of those outsiders. 19 The term

Melanesia comes from Greek, namely “mela” which means black. European invaders then popularize this term, mainly French to name this place as western border of

18 Interview with John Rumbiak, Jayapura 26 May 2002. 19 Osborne, Robin, 2001. Kibaran Sampari: OPM Liberation Struggle,

and Secret War in West Papua, Elsam, Jakarta.

colored skin islands that form Melanesian islands cluster.

Papua is also frequently known as the country of orchid flower and cenderawasih bird. It has been a convention by historians and geography scientists that Papua is a continuation of Australia continent located in tropical zone. This, among others, is based on its natural topography of flora and fauna. This island is classified into Melanesia cluster because it is inhabited by a type of Negroid nation, the nation parent of black people or melanoderm.

Long before the first European migrant, namely D’Abrau saw Papua Island in 1512; its inhabitants had conducted interaction with outsiders, mainly Malays and Chinese. They called the area or island they visited with the term of “Papuah” that for the Malays it means people with curly hair. 20 While other source says that “Papua’ is

a name given by Tidore Kingdom. The word Papua in Tidorese is often used to refer that this area is far from the Kingdom area.

West Papua that Sukarno then changed it into Irian Barat, and then changed again to Irian Jaya by the New Order actually only integrated to 1945 Proclamation RI state on 1 July 1969, as an epilog of general plebiscite that is commonly referred to as Pepera. The name of Irian is said to be chosen by Sukarno for political propaganda purpose against the Dutch. Irian is

20 Potozc, Donald G, 1987. Conservation of Nature and Development in Irian Jaya, Strategy of Rational Use of Natural Resources, Grafiti

Press, Jakarta.

an acronym for Ikut Republik Indonesia Anti Nederland (Join the Republic of Indonesia Anti Nederland).

While Pepera constitutes a policy created because of political outcome of retaking West Irian from Nederland’s colonialism exercised by Sukarno through a slogan of Tri Komando Rakyat (Three People’s Commands) by launching military operation supported by a number of local adat leaders. The content of Trikora is (i) stop the establishment of Papua puppet state by Nederland colonialist; (ii) Fly the Red and White flag in West Irian, the mother land of Indonesia; and (iii) Be ready for public mobilization to defend the freedom of Indonesia. This motivates the government of the United States of America to make initiative of New York Convention on 15 August 1962 to keep the stability in Asia Pacific region. Since 1 October 1962 until 1 May 1963 West Papua was under the control of “UNO Custody” or UNTEA. Officially Papua became Level I Area Province of Irian Jaya on 10 September 1969 based on Law No. 12 of 1969. 21

For some of Papua people –mainly the group that since the beginning have been anti RI Government—Pepera is a crucial problem. They continue to question the decision and mention they do not accept such UNO decision because they think the implementation of Pepera is not in accordance with New York Convention. In the convention it is mentioned that self-determination for Papua people should be conducted by one-man one vote, not with deliberation system.

21 Stanley, 2000. “Report of Democratization Political Geographical Survey,” ISAI, Jakarta.

Besides questioning the implementation system of Pepera, many Papua people also think that the procedure carried out by RI government much neglected democratic values. At that time the military had been prepared to coerce and intimidate so that people agreed to integrate with RI. The violence conducted by the military was not only before Pepera, but also post implementation of Pepera to “secure” the engineered outcome. It can be understood if then Papua people expressed their historical contemplation as one of the efforts to go out off repressive NKRI tie. The historical facts used for Papua people’s weapons to get separated from NKRI, among others, are:

1) West Papua (New Guinea) had become a part of Nederland Kingdom on 7 March 1910 and no longer became Indian Nederland region located in Batavia (Jakarta) for 350 years.

2) On 23 August 1956 in Nederland Constitution amendment, Papua Land (New Guinea) became a part of Nederland Kingdom.

3) Based on RI President’s (Soekarno) speech before the session of BPUPKI (Agency for Preparation of Indonesian Freedom) and of PPKI on 11 July 1945 that liberated Indonesia only covered Sabang (Aceh) up to Amboina (Molluca), while West Papua was not included or outside the territory of RIS/RI.

And then according to Holland Proclamation text, 27 December 1949, which officially and legally stipulated the administration/gubernatorial of New Guinea, became a part of the Administration of Nederland Kingdom under the leadership of Queen Juliana. Papua people were never And then according to Holland Proclamation text, 27 December 1949, which officially and legally stipulated the administration/gubernatorial of New Guinea, became a part of the Administration of Nederland Kingdom under the leadership of Queen Juliana. Papua people were never

1) There is no RI legal power that binds the nation and land of Papua since the early struggle until 1999.

2) The Youth Pledge in October 1928 in Jakarta until the

17 August 1945 Proclamation.

3) The Round Table Conference in December 1949 in Den Haag between Nederland and the government of the Republic of Indonesia.

4) The New York Agreement in August 1962 in USA, between the government of Nederland Kingdom and the government of the Republic of Indonesia.

5) The Rome Agreement on 30 September 1962 in Rome between the government of Nederland Kingdom, the Republic of Indonesia and USA. 22

Therefore, the integration of Papua into NKRI, which is only based on non-democratic Pepera –with intimidation and violence—in some Papua people’s view, constitutes a historical distortion. Therefore, Chairperson of LEMASA, Tom Beanal thinks the freedom of Papua constitutes a necessity. This position, according to him, constitutes a part of historical correction and, at the same time, a historical necessity that cannot be negotiated. 23

Mama Yosepha, Resistance Window of Papua People The state violence that is mainly expressed by the

military in Papua has been going on for quite a long

22 Team 100 National Dialogue, 2000. “The Outcome of Political Aspiration Contemplation of West Papua Nation, Delivered to the

President of the Republic of Indonesia, not published. 23 Interview with Tom Beanal, Timika 28 May 2002.

time. Meanwhile, the resistance carried out by local people always fails. There are some fundamental reasons why people’s resistance can easily be crippled by the military. First, there is factionalism of movement, mainly among the movements adopting violence method. With the emergence of these differences, the military uses it to exercise “divide and rule” politics. This can be seen from the appearance of Satgas Papua (Taskforce) and Satgas Merah Putih (the Red and White Task Force) that in many cases fight to each other. Second, weak media support. During the period of the New Order, control of information and communication was under the military hand. Therefore all information on Papua condition on nation scale was under the military control. As a result, not many people knew the real condition of Papua. Third, weak network. The resistances carried out by people in the beginning were on personal or parochial sphere so that the echo and reach was less monumental.

The appearance of Mama Yosepha in the map of Papua people struggle can be viewed as something monumental. This is mainly related to some constraints above. Mama Yosepha was not only successful in “unifying” people movement by making herself as people’s peaceful resistance symbol of Papua people, but also had opened information door through some awards/prizes she achieved. Also through her actions outsiders knew much more on the real condition occurred in Papua. It is not an exaggeration if Mama Yosepha behavior was then often mentioned as the initial window of human rights struggle in Papua.

Initial Milestone of Resistance When not many people had courage to resist rulers and businesspersons’ arbitrariness in Papua, Mama Yosepha was one of those courageously came forward with confidence. At least, there were two basic beliefs that became her resistance foundation. First, the church doctrine she believes in that God creates everything on the surface of the earth based on love, while she often witnessed violence and torn-love scenes. Terror, intimidation, torture and killings are not uncommon in Papua. Second, the adat norms that position the land as heirloom, but with her very own eyes she often witnesses forced adat land confiscation. 24

Those two aspects then forced Mama Yosepha to start confrontation with the military who positioned themselves as not only state apparatus, but also as guardians of businesspersons, mainly in this case PT. Freeport. She admitted since 1974 she conducted resistance against PT. Freeport, especially in two issues. First, it is related to land confiscation and environmental pollution. Second, it is the issue of social impact due to industrialization with rampant alcoholic drinks and prostitution. Perhaps, factually, she herself does not really understand whether what she has done a form of human rights struggle or whatever its name, but essentially she is very sure that

24 Interview with Mama Yosepha, Timika 30 May 2002. With slow Indonesian language accent she explained that she did not know what

human rights were, what democracy was. When Papua people said this was my garden, this was my land and the military answered with barrel of gun, then we had to resist. “Is that a struggle for human rights, is that a struggle for democracy? I don’t know. What I know is that defending ownership right and inheritance land is our adat,” she said.

those problems are urgent, they are worth struggling for, in religious and adat perspectives she believes in.

The director of ALDP, Anum Siregar thinks that the strategy of struggle carried out by Mama Yosepha is very simple. In the beginning she only organized widows to do various protests, mainly to PT. Freeport. Mama Yosepha thought the existence of PT. Freeport had damaged the environment and culture. She could no longer cultivate her lands freely. While on the other hand, alcoholic drinks and prostitution epidemic really harmed nuclear family existence in the social system, especially in Timika. So Mama Yosepha Movement initially was very simple, but its direction was very clear and this finally disturbed or annoyed PT. Freeport and then the state intervened to get rid of Mama Yosepha who was considered to be a dissident. 25

Kompas newspaper describes the resistance carried out by Mama Yosepha that PT. Freeport at that time was at the height increasing its development. As a result, residents’ land –including garden –gradually began to be removed. The removal of Timika residents’ livelihood intensified in line with construction of PT. Freeport employee houses in Timika Indah complex in 1985. The mothers whose vegetable gardens were removed certainly got angry. As a form of protest, they cut the harvested vegetables off. But the mothers’ effort to defend the land –mainly gardens, as the only source of their lives was not heeded. At that very time Mama Yosepha led

25 Interview with Anum Siregar, Jayapura 27 May 2002.

Amungme tribe movement, especially the mothers to fight against PT. Freeport. 26

When all Papua people were overwhelmed by fear, Mama Yosepha was the first courageous person to begin showing resistance. “That is why, perhaps, the others become ashamed, why a woman who indeed has the gut. It constitutes the most valuable contribution of Mama Yosepha in democracy struggle mainly the struggle for (upholding) human rights in Papua. This even can be viewed as the initial milestone which inspires further resistances,” Anum added.

Similar view also described by Albert Bolang, Coordinator of LBH Timika Station. According to him, Mama Yosepha is one of the living witnesses who become the victim of human right violation. Mama Yosepha has been included in black list that becomes the target for killing, but later on she successfully saved herself. 27 In

a report written by Bishop Munninghoff, it is mentioned that on 28 October 1994 at 24.00 hours the military broke the house door of Mama Yosepha. They directly entered to the bedroom and arrested her. In a place full of human dung, Mama Yosepha was detained for two weeks without legal process. 28 “At midnight, when I was sleeping

soldiers came fully armed. My husband and I were dragged from inside the mosquito net, kicked off and beaten repeatedly. We were tortured like animals, hit and cursed at,”

said Yosepha. 29

26 Kompas, Tuesday 21 December 1999. 27 Interview with Albert Bolang, Timika, 29 May 2002. 28 Report of Munninghoff Bishop, Jayapura, 1995 29 Kompas, 26 January 2001.

The experience of Mama Yosepha then became a very valuable inspiration for human rights worker circle to work and move more seriously in their struggle. “I think what Mama Yosepha has played in her role is very significant for the growth of human right and democracy struggle in Papua. It is proven, among others, with the growing number of people, mainly NGO activists circles who support Mama Yosepha’s struggle, at Papua, national, even international levels,” said Albert adding some information.

Network and Support Before Mama Yosepha achieved two prestigious awards, Yap Thiam Hien Award 10 December 1999 and Goldman Environmental Prize April 2001, not many people knew her name. Even, the simple woman whose most of her life is dedicated to fight promoting human rights in Papua land, her name never appears in local Papua media completely.

John Rumbiak, one of human right activists who also often acts as counselor/assistant of Mama Yosepha said that the role of media at that time did not yet appear in covering human rights issues in Papua. It can be understood because of the strong state control over the media at that time. “In such condition, who has the courage to talk about human rights? The media that often publish and raise human rights issue in Papua at that time were foreign medias. Our media just disclosed human rights issues recently, including lifting up Mama

Yosepha’s case –just after she received some awards, he said. 30

However, according to the Chief Editor of JUBI tabloid Mohammad Kholifan actually the media –mainly in Papua- really supported what Mama Yosepha had carried out, although there were still some limitations. 31 Besides, he thought Mama Yosepha herself is not the type of person liked by the media. Usually, the media prefers

a person with “lots of voice”, his/her arguments, oration, and others. While Mama Yosepha is not such type of person. “She even cannot speak Indonesian language fluently, also she is illiterate. So Mama Yosepha is not communicative for media people. Mama Yosepha is too much simple, but indeed with that condition we can say she is the authentic portrait of Papua people,”

he said. On media blow up after Mama Yosepha received some awards, Kholifan also gave evaluation that sometimes we were often shocked, while her struggle formerly did not get (attention) to become press commodity. Exactly when she received the award, media blow up was very great. Unfortunately, media covering that was quite extensive was not on the movement carried out by Mama Yosepha, but more on the admiration that such simple, illiterate person cold do this, could do that and so forth. “So, according to me, the media is not fair in this respect,”

he said. Moreover, from the media perspective, there is other interesting note. According to Kholifan, in the beginning Mama Yosepha was a single fighter. Mama Yosepha was a

30 Interview with John Rumbiak, Jayapura, 25 May 2002. 31 Interview with Mohammad Kholifan, Jayapura, 24 May 2002.

person who did not care about network. Mama Yosepha even once protested NGO circle because her movement was abused only to gain popularity of some NGOs. However, in a while Mama Yosepha realized that without a network her movement could not possibly become bigger and wider. Even, some awards Mama Yosepha received were enabled because of other institutions’ support.

At least there are three main components that support Mama Yosepha’s struggle. First, the church group. This group actually is for the first time disclosing and distributing important information related to human rights violation occurred in Papua. More than that, Mama Yosepha herself her original basis was a church activist. Second, adat community, mainly Amungme tribe. Although a very strong patrilineal system prevails in Papua, but characterization of Mama Yosepha is well received. In 1993, together with Thom Beanal, Mama Yosepha established LEMASA, and became one of the quite respected leadership figures. According to John Rumbiak, the characterization of Mama Yosepha is not only limited within Amungme tribe circle, but is also received by other existing tribes in Papua. Third, the NGO circles, at local level such as YPMD, LBH and ELSHAM Papua; NGOs at national level like Elsam and Walhi Jakarta and also some International NGOs.

Besides the three main networks above, Mama Yosepha herself admitted that the biggest support she received was from Papua people in general. ”Society is everything, it is the source of truth and power. Without the community I mean nothing, she said. It is not an exaggeration if then she stated that all awards she Besides the three main networks above, Mama Yosepha herself admitted that the biggest support she received was from Papua people in general. ”Society is everything, it is the source of truth and power. Without the community I mean nothing, she said. It is not an exaggeration if then she stated that all awards she

YAHAMAK: Institutionalizing Resistance? Not long after receiving Yap Thiam Hien Award, Mama Yosepha established Anti Violence Human Rights Foundation (YAHAMAK). According to Mama Yosepha, some church figures and adat figures took part in preparing the birth of this

institution. 32 But according to Arens Kalami –one of YAHAMAk staff—the central figures which then emerged and

considered to be the founders of YAHAMAK were only two persons, namely Mama Yosepha and Arnold Ronsumbre. 33 Mama

Yosepha then became the director of this foundation, while Arnold Ronsumbre became its secretary.

According to Arnold, the presence of YAHAMAK is based on two fundamental issues, and at the same time two considerations. First, this institution has an ambition to “immortalize” Mama Yosepha’s struggle. Therefore, the big agenda that becomes YAHAMAK working program pivots on regeneration so that human right struggle as role-played by Mama Yosepha will not cease. Second, to develop human resources (SDM) in their praxis area. It is realized that human resources condition in Papua is still very inferior. Therefore, it has been an urgent need to create “new Yosephas” who not only understand human rights, but also Yosephas who are good at computers, understand technology, agriculture and other fields. Some of these

32 Interview with Mama Yosepha, Timika, 30 May 2002. 33 Interview with Arens Kalami, Timika, 30 May 2002.

efforts that want to be answered by YAHAMAK in the future. 34

To materialize such big agenda, YAHAMAK has formulated an integrated working program, beginning with Human Right division, women division, farmer division, environmental and also education divisions. No less important, physical infrastructure is also prepared. Arnold Ronsumbre who is now appointed as Secretary of YAHAMAK is not only functioning himself as an administrator, but also seems to be more of “the real architect” of YAHAMAK. “At present the office of YAHAMAK has been constructed. We are preparing integrated Mama Yosepha complex. Later on in this place there will be a meeting hall, adat houses from various tribes, dormitories for boys and girls. We will guide the children here for all skills: reading, writing, cooking, embroidery, up to computer skills. We have prepared all of these and we will socialize these programs so that all people can accept them,” said the ex-Golkar activist who also once was an employee of PT. Freeport.

However, the big agenda promoted by YAHAMAK also arises controversy. Quite many people hope that the agenda of empowerment voiced by YAHAMAK will really be implemented. On the other hand, quite many people concern the existence of YAHAMAK. Can YAHAMAK really function itself as institutionalization of the movement of human right struggle or on the contrary, constitute a cooptation effort of some parties to pacify the

34 Interview with Arnold Ronsumbre, Timika, 30 May 2002.

resistance. Such concern mostly haunts NGO activists and other social workers.

Thom Beanal, one of Amungme tribe figures –who has become for along time Mama Yosepha’s fellow struggle – included in one of the persons who feels this concern. “I do not question Yosepha, I have known her missions, perseverance, her courage in the struggle, also her virtuousness. But that is why I am worried there is other person who wants to abuse her,”

said Thom. 35 The Director of LEMASA, Paulus Andreas Kanonggopme, also expresses

similar moan. According to Paulus, if indeed YAHAMAK has an intention to empower the community, it is alright, but its missions should also be clear. One other thing, we need to strictly differentiate between YAHAMAK and Mama Yosepha as individual. All Papua people know, Mama Yosepha has struggled since she was in LEMASA in the past, while YAHAMAK has just appeared recently. 36

Separated from the controversy, Chief Editor of JUBI tabloid Mohammad Kholifan considers the presence of YAHAMAK will become positive if it is orientated to modernize the struggle of Mama Yosepha. He views the struggle ever carried out by Mama Yosepha so far has not been well organized. In fact, the context and challenge of the struggle now can rapidly change so that modern institution can be prepared as one of the facilities to anticipate. Within this context, at least there are three aspects that require YAHAMAK attention. First, how Mama Yosepha is able to make YAHAMAK as a good facility for regeneration of cadres so that all decisions are not

35 Interview with Thom Beanal, Timika, 28 May 2002. 36 Interview with Paulus Andreas Kanonggopme, Timika, 28 May 2002.

centralized on herself. Second, it will also depend on how the society perceives the existence of YAHAMAK, mainly from stakeholders’ perspective it develops. Third, how the network becomes more able to make YAHAMAK position “more stylish” and also closer to the people. If these three aspects can be defended, YAHAMAK will be very popular in people’s mind. On the contrary, if these three things are not anticipated, perhaps YAHAMAK will still exist, but it does not go anywhere/stationary. 37

ELSHAM and The New Round of Human Right Struggle

Yohanis G. Bonay said that Institute for the Study and Advocacy of Human Rights (ELSHAM) Papua was born out of a long contemplation against Papua people struggle on political and legal situation that was very repressive. The fact that security approach and various forms of violence systematically had created a feeling of traumatic fear within Papua community circles. This was because various forms of human right violation occurred in a quite long period of time. 38

Chronologically, the human right issues in Papua began to emerge to the surface since the disclosure of gross violation of human rights in PT. Freeport location. Bishop Munninghoff reported this case for the first time on 1 August 1995. It was then followed by other reports of human right violation such as Bela, Alama, Jila, Mapenduma cases and bloody Biak case in July 1998. All of these show that Papua land constitutes a “fertile” land for human right violations to occur. This fact is self-

37 Interview with Mohammad Kholifan, Jayapura, 24 May 2002. 38 Interview with Yohanis G. Bonay, Jayapura, 25 May 2002.

admitted by Komnas HAM (National Commission for Human Rights). Even in a press release on 24 August 1999. Komnas HAM said that human right violation in Papua had occurred repeatedly due to discriminative and unfair government policy.

The objective condition of human right violation complexity had pushed legal practician, NGO and church workers and other human right observers to synergy in setting up ELSHAM on 5 May 1998. Concerning the vision- mission of ELSHAM, Yohanis G. Bonay who at present has a position of its Executive Director said that ELSHAM wanted to try to participate in developing and promoting the meaning and respect for constitutional state and human right values based on the 1945 Constitution and UNO Universal Declaration of Human Rights. While for its praxis dimension, ELSHAM will proactively take part –with its various programs- in handling human right issues, mainly those occurred in Papua area. To reach and achieve the intention and goal ELSHAM Papua carries out some agendas, among others:

a. Monitoring and critical assessment of law and human rights in various aspects of development policy.

b. Legal and human right education and training, mainly for adat, church figures and also the people in general.

c. Legal assistance through counseling and defense in various forms for victims of human rights violation.

d. Distributing various information and finding on human rights and law through leaflet, bulletin, and other information media. 39

Asking for a Dialogue The story and testimony of military violence victims in Papua land has become quite a legend. This, among others, can be analyzed in ELSHAM Report of Total People Murdered By Indonesians. The result of ELSHAM investigation team describes not less than 10 cases. Of these various cases, some of them constitute rape cases that even also suffered by young children (under five years old).

Lince Gwijangge, 11 years old said, when she went home from the garden, at the end of Mapenduma airstrip, someone named Dolpi called her. “I was then raped and suffered a pain for a month,” said Lince slowly to ELSHAM Team. Martha Wandikmbo, a cute little girl from Nduga of