Demilitarization and Democratization
A portrait of Fighting for Human Rights in Papua
1Sofian 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).
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.
tortured and murdered without legal procedure. Some of violence actions performed by the military post Pepera also can be categorized as a form of grave violation of human rights, among others are3:
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,
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.
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
8 A Report of ELSHAM Papua, 1999.
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
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
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.
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.
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,
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.
residents and Enyem areas. This leadership system is similar to the second typology. The difference is, the first one has a wider authority. While the clan leadership type has less authority. Perhaps it is only 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
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 people, drunkards and 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,
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
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
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.
involved in early struggle and dispute and formulation of political agreement, namely:
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
received, in principle is for the society. All of them are the right of Papua people she “represented”.
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
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
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.
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.38Chronologically, 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
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.
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 3 years old also experienced the same. Then similar fate also hit Sopinagwe (23), Nirinera Gwijangge (25), Yunuruskwe Gwijangge (19), Sarah Gwijangge (25), Pesel Gwijangge (11) and Kerele Lokmbre (19). Not enough with that, a grandma of 60 years named Nonakwe Gwijangge and Kweweidnakwe (50) also became the targets of rape that all of them were committed by the military.40
In other section, the ELSHAM report also mentions that to secure vital project of PT. Freeport, all central mountainous areas in Papua, beginning from Timika,
39 Stanley, 2000. “Report of Democratization Political Geographical
Survey,” ISAI, Jakarta
1965-The spreading of human right violation cases occurred in Papua shows two essential aspects. On the one hand, the government of Indonesia has taken a wrong measures by implementing centralistic and discriminative legal system. On the other hand, it shows the presence of communication blockage between the central government and the people in the region. Therefore, according to the Vice Director of ELSHAM, Aloy Renwarin, the principle problem in Papua should not be the offer of autonomy, otsus (special autonomy), or other political sweetening. But it is high time Papua people are given the opportunity to open a space more conducive for dialogue on Papua problems by themselves.41
However, “the dialogue agenda” that ELSHAM often reiterates is often ignored. Even because of that ELSHAM is frequently accused of standing behind the petition of Free Papua. Not to mention when ELSHAM took part together with Irian Society for Reconciliation Forum (Foreri) that conveyed their petition openly to President B.J. Habibie on 24 July 1999. ELSHAM received a complaint not only from government circle, but also from other NGO circles because it was considered to be drifted into practical politics. Responding to this complaint, Yohanis G. Bonay refused that it was no more than ELSHAM effort to get involved in society’s aspiration problem. ELSHAM wanted to participate in developing bigger space for dialogue where all parties could accept dialogue process as one of the methods to solve the existing problems in Papua. “So
ELSHAM only wants to develop a space where all parties will have a talk. On the content of the dialogue is political work; and this is outside the capacity of ELSHAM as an advocacy institution,” he said.42
Local Organization, Global Network
In its relatively young age, ELSHAM Papua can be considered as a quite successful institution. This can be seen from two aspects. First, the public responds to its performance, at local and wider levels as well. Second, the real activity conducted with various implications that it creates.
The director of LBH Papua, Demianus Wakman thinks ELSHAM performance is very positive and significant in human right struggle in Papua. According to him, ELSHAM is often at the frontline to defend the people. Even, ELSHAM existence is not only responded positively by the society, but also is also seriously calculated by other parties. In numerous hearings in DPRD, for example, ELSHAM is often specifically invited as expert team to provide confirmation.43
Still concerning the organization’s performance, Yusak Andato Chairperson of SMPT Cendrawasih University (Students Senate) also has similar evaluation. According to him, the presence of ELSHAM is quite positive, mainly in conducting enlightenment for the people. With the role it is playing, it is in line with the people that they give good appreciation to ELSHAM presence.44 The public
respond to ELSHAM performance in general can be observed in mass-media coverage, especially the local media in Papua. According to a staff of ELSHAM Information Division, Yafet Kambai, although the respond from the media varies, but in general we can say that the media is very supportive to the agendas carried out by ELSHAM.45
When the media wrote on human right violation in Papua, it can be ascertained that they would ask confirmation from ELSHAM figures, or –at least—would quote official statements issued by ELSHAM.
From its activity side, Chairperson of Independent Journalists Alliance (AJI) Papua, Frits Ramandei thinks the role of ELSHAM is very phenomenal. According to him, ELSHAM is quite successful in conducting various advocacies on human right violation. Although at national level there are limitations that become constraints, but ELSHAM has a big instrument, mainly in access and support, at local, national and international levels as well.46 The strong access and support for ELSHAM,
according to him cannot be separated from the role of capable ELSHAM figures, mainly for persons like John Rumbiak who possesses international reputation.
In contrast with that, a Supervisor of Foker-Papua NGO Bambang Sugiono has an opinion that ELSHAM behavior is rather exclusive. According to him, human right issue should be seen as a fundamental problem with comprehensive character. Human right problem is not something that stands alone and sectarian, but this is a fundamental problem that requires integral solution.
Therefore, the problem of human rights cannot be seen as merely a violence act that becomes the specialization of Kontras of ELSHAM, for example, but how these basic rights can be guaranteed legally. After that, the basics mentioned in Universal Declaration of Human Right are implemented with their various implications. “So in my view, it will be better if ELSHAM sees the problem of human rights in comprehensive macro context. But maybe it has become the choice or specialization of ELSHAM which certainly it also constitutes a part of human right itself,” said Bambang.47 However, separated from this
discourse, Bambang admits that ELSHAM has conducted many things in the forms of results and real work in carrying out advocacy and defense for the people. Even according to him, ELSHAM can be considered as the highlight for human right struggle in Papua.
Resisting the Military Hegemony
George Junus Aditjondro has many interesting notes on Indonesian military behavior. From the notes, there are some aspects relevant to the militarism context taking place in Papua.48 First, unlike in Java or almost
all other places in Indonesia, nature lovers in Papua have to ask for permit and sometimes have to be escorted by the military if they want to do hiking and mountaineering in the mountains they love.
Second, more than what can be observed in Java, the attitude of military members assigned in Papua –
47 Interview with Bambang Sugiono, Jayapura, 24 May 2002 48 Complete note on this can be read in Nurani Papua (Papua
especially from the special units like Kopasus who at that time still under the name of Kopassandha—so suspicious to native people as sympathizers or participants of GPK (Security Disturbance Gang). The suspicion is even added with a wrong assumption that local natural resources may be drained off freely without respecting local adat community rights and regulations protecting scarce flora and fauna.
Third, the military officials seconded to take civilian positions are difficult to accept ulayat/communal right concept that includes all natural resources in this island. But actually the concept of ulayat right is not something typical of Papua only, but it also applies in many other islands outside Java.
Fourth, the military that performs civic mission in the middle of Papua society suffers a cultural disease that is very paternalistic to the local people. They think they are smarter and more civilized so that they have to intensely help “civilizing’ Papua people. A number of “Development” project failures in Papua among others are caused by arrogance of rulers, mainly the central government who think their culture is higher than the culture of native Papua people whom they think stupid.49
Although “formally” Papua has not been Military Operation Zone (DOM) anymore, but the military influence is still strongly holding in Papua land. This condition significantly influences on the complexity of human right
49 Aditjondro, GJ. 1997. “If Sub-district Head Learns Anthropology
violation cases settlement in Papua –where the military always become the source of problems.
As an effort to balance the military hegemony, ELSHAM then promoted a vision of demilitarization. According to Aloy Renwarin, this effort is chosen considering the fact that the most human right violations in Papua are committed by the military. Therefore, ELSHAM thinks it important to carry out campaigns to resist military hegemony in its various ways and forms so the people realize it.50 However, according to Yohanis G.
Bonay demilitarization conducted by ELSHAM should not be seen as a standard format or a form of ELSHAM confrontation against the military.51 According to him,
the aspect put forward by ELSHAM is the element of its political education. Through advocacy, people should be made aware of their civil rights. While the military are continuously reminded that they cannot do whatever they want in Papua land without a clear legal ground and guidance. Demilitarization automatically is not an effort to resist the military frontally, but resisting their repressive and authoritarian militaristic attitudes.
The case of Theys, A New Round of Military Violence52
Taking the benefit of reform moment of post soeharto’s fall, the demand of Papua people for separation from Indonesia gets stronger. As the answer to such demand, military violence in Papua is increased. Various peaceful actions demanding Free Papua is faced by
50 Interview with Aloy Renwarin, Jayapura, 24 May 2002. 51 Interview with Yohanis G. Bonay, Jayapura, 25 May 2002.
52 This section is quoted from Report of ELSHAM Papua Investigation
barrel of guns. Some incidents involving military violence in post DOM revocation among others occurred in Biak (6 July 1998), Sorong (5 July 1999), Timika (2 December 1999), Merauke (16 February 2000), Nabire (28 February – March 2000), Sorong (27 July and 22 August 2000), and Wamena (6 October 2000).
Meanwhile, clandestine operation is continuously increased to neutralize Papua activists, mainly after Papua People Congress II held on 29 May – 4 June 2000. The plan of this clandestine operation can be seen from a leak of highly secretive document published by Dirjen KESBANG and LINMAS (General Directorates of Welfare & Development, and Community Protection) of Department of Domestic Affairs in official note number 578/ND/KESBANG/D IV/VI/2000 dated 9 June 2000. This document contains a concept on “Operation plan for area conditioning and development of communication network in respond for political direction of Free Papua demand”.
In that secret document there are name list of Papua figures that have to be “eliminated”. The names of figures, among others are: Theys Hiyo Eluay, Thom Beanal, the late Yusuf Tanawi, Priest Herman Awom, Dr. Karel Phil Erari, Dr. Benny Giay, Agus Alua, Drs. Jakobus Pervidya Salosa, Simon P. Morin, John Rumbiak, Yohanis G. Bonay, Gerson Abrauw and Diaz Giwijangge. When being confirmed by Reuters News Office (30/11/2000), Department of Domestic Affairs admitted that there was a meeting to solve fluctuation that Jakarta named it separatism in Papua attended by 13 government offices at national level.
The Papua police translated this operation plan by making an analysis on Polda (Regional Police) effort to solve separatism in the frame of upholding supremacy of law. Organizing “Operation Sadar Matoa 2000” which lasted for 90 days then followed up this analysis. This operation was mainly directed to activists of Free Papua movement and its sympathizers. This phenomenon shows that Polda has had very systematic preparation to eliminate Free Papua movement that the government considered as separatist movement. The police policy certainly constituted a part of the state policy as a whole. Therefore, the death of Theys was very easy to understand if it was connected to the context of state violence, which had been systematically prepared by the military.
stance.53 According to him, although there were many
possibilities, but whatever had happened, whoever the killers were, whatever the motive was behind it, what we inquired was the seriousness of the government in handling this problem. The slow handling of this case indeed created a suspicion that the government wanted to cover up and delay this problem so that gradually people would forget. One thing that became a conviction of most Papua people was that Theys’ death was not natural. There was a strong assumption that the state got involved in it. Therefore, ELSHAM had the opinion that it constituted a gross violation of human right that thorough investigation was necessary. We have not seen the state responsibility in handling this case fairly and openly.
Final Note
Political violence against Papua people has been going on in a quite long time. Some military operations were made through a pragmatic political policy. The militarism chosen by the government as the spearhead to bring about the policy, in turn created a long list of human right violation. The security approach in Papua that is too excessive actually is not intended for political interest only. The stipulation of DOM in Papua is also closely related to economic interest and the military interest itself. In this context, the presence of PT. Freeport constitutes a significant example where those various interests intertwine; interlock, pulling
each other in a symbiosis mutuality channel among them reciprocally.
The emergence of Papua people’s resistance against the military as representative of state hegemony in the beginning was not based on an elegant resistance ideology. That is why various resistances carried out by Papua people often ended in stigma stab that made them powerless. In this context, the phenomenon of Mama Yosepha teaches a very valuable lesson; that the “success” of Papua people’s struggle completely will not be determined by muscle and gun. The peaceful struggle exactly is the thing that can force the military to withdraw (in orderly manner).
The petition of Free Papua that continuously resonates turns out to be like a knife with double blades. On the one hand, it can be viewed as the most contextual and realistic movement, because it has a clear historical root and ideological base. But on the other hand, the orientation of struggle which is too political will as if lull the real struggle of human rights. The emergence of internal factionalism does not only deviate the struggle, but –without realizing it—will also change the orientation. The society vertical conflict against the state will turn into fatal horizontal conflict. Such condition exactly will re-invite military repression and repeat the human right violation and damages the values of humanity.
attitude to resist the military, but to resist anything militaristic. This constitutes more a political lesson to create people’s awareness of their civil rights.
In Frans Maniagasi’s view, such political awareness is important to develop, because in rational-objective thinking, the violence suffered by Papua people is not merely caused by the repressive military, but also because of Papua people’s weak “collective power” that opens the opportunity for such repression to occur. Even the most authoritarian regime will think a thousand times (first) to oppress the people who have been politically aware and united.54
Therefore, in his evaluation, the main key of Papua future is how Papua people collectively are able to protect and fight for their interest. (They must be) defending against economically, politically, and ideologically more powerful groups, including maintaining the way of life in the form of cultural expression and its values. Solidarity of Papua needs to be developed in a new structure and framework through transformation of social-traditional structure into a new paradigm beyond ethnicity borders into more universal-collective identity and interest.
The effort should become a collective agenda for the existing social workers in Papua, namely NGO, church circles and adat community that have promoted since a long time ago humanity agendas in Papua land. Storm and blow of historical wave that is full of violence, repression and injustice will surely be left behind if –
54 Maniagasi, Frans, 2002. “Papua, Not Special Autonomy or Free” in
Bibliography
Source of Interview
Yohanis G. Bonay (Director of ELSHAM) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 25 May 2002
Aloy Renwarin (Vice Director of ELSHAM) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 24 May 2002
Yafet Kambai (Information Division of ELSHAM) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 26 May 2002
Demianus Wakman (Director of LBH Papua) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 26 May 2002
Bambang Sugiono (Supervisor Foker-NGO) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 24 May 2002
Frits Ramandei (Chairperson of AJI Papua) by Charles Benggu, Jayapura July 2001
Yusak Andato (Chairperson of SMPT Uncen) by Charles Benggu, Jayapura July 2001
Ferry Pioh (Lecturer of Fisip Uncen) by Charles Benggu, Jayapura July 2001
George A. Awi (Adat Community Figure) by Charles Benggu, Jayapura July 2001
Amos Soumilena (Community Figure) by Charles Benggu, Jayapura July 2001
Mama Yosepha (Director of YAHAMAK) by Sofian Asgart, Timika 30 May 2002
Arnold Ronsumbre (Secretary of YAHAMAK) by Sofian Asgart, Timika 30 May 2002
John Rumbiak (Assistant of MamaYosepha) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 25 May 2002
Thom Beanal (Chairperson of LEMASA) by Sofian Asgart, Timika 28 May 2002
Paulus Andreas K (Exec, Director of LEMASA) by Sofian Asgart, Timika 28 May 2002
Robert Mandosir (Director of YALI) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 25 May 2002
Mohammad Kholifan (Chief Editor of JUBI) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 24 May 2002
Anum Siregar (Director of ALDP) by Sofian Asgart, Jayapura 27 May 2002
Albert Bolang (Coordinator of LBH Timika) by Sofian Asgart, Timika 29 May 2002
Source of Books
Aditjondro, GJ. 1997. “If Sub-district Head Learns Anthropology (Or Anthropologist Becomes Sub-District Head?)” in Pim Schoolrl, 2001. Nederland in Irian Jaya: Government Officials in Turmoil Period 1945-1962, Garba Budaya, Jakarta.
_________ 2000. “Ten-face of Militarism in West Papua”, in Nurani Papua (Papua Conscience), February-March 2002 Edition..
Budiman, Arief & Olle Tornquist, 2001. Democracy Actors: A Note on Resistance Movement in Indonesia, ISAI, Jakarta.
Foker NGO, 2000. “Free Papua: Background, Root of
Problem, Actor’s Perception and Solution Opportunity in Podium Special Edition, published by Papua NGO
Cooperation Forum.
Garnaut, Ross and Chris Manning, 1974. Irian Jaya: The Transformation of a Melanesia Economy, Australian University Press, Canberra.
Haryanto, Ignatius, 1999. State Crime: An Analysis on Application of State Security Offense, Elsam, Jakarta.
Heryanto, Ariel, 2000. Resistance in Obedience, Mizan, Bandung.
Jolliffe, Jill. 1978. East Timor, Nationalism and Colonialism, University of Queensland Press, Queensland.
Kontras, 2000. The State Refuses Responsibility, A report of Human Rights Violation in 2000, Kontras, Jakarta.
Mansoben, JR, 1999. “Statistics of Forest and Plantation of Irian Jaya Province,” in Sri Mastuti et. Al, 2000. Stretching and Getting Up, PSPK, Jakarta.
Osborne, Robin, 2001. Kibaran Sampari: OPM Liberation Struggle, and Secret War in West Papua, Elsam, Jakarta.
Potozc, Donald G., 1987. Conservation of Nature and Development in Irian Jaya, Strategy of Rational Use of Natural Resources, Grafiti Press, Jakarta.
Stanley, 2000. “A report of Democratization Political Geographical Survey,” ISAI, Jakarta.
Maniagasi, Frans, 2002. “Papua, Not Special Autonomy or Free” in Republika, 13 June 2002.
Source of Media
Cenderawasih Post, Friday 20 May 2002, Monday 27 May 2002.
Kompas, Tuesday 21 December 1999. Kompas, Thursday 26 February 2001.
Nurani Papua, February-March 2002 Edition. Radar Timika, Wednesday 29 May 2002.
Republika, Thursday 13 June 2002.
Tabloid Jubi, Year 2000-2001 Edition.
Report and Release
White Book of GKI Synod Irja, 1993.
Foreri, 1999. “The Outcome of Political Aspiration Contemplation of West Papua Nation, Delivered to the President of the Republic of Indonesia”, West Papua People’s Delegate,
Team 100 of National Dialogue. A report of ELSHAM Papua, 1999.
A report of GKI Irja, Jayapura Diocese and GKII Irja, 1998.
A report of Justice and Peace, Jayapura Diocese Catholic Church, 1999.
