Aliansi Demokrasi untuk Papua(Alliance of Democracy for Papua)

YAYASAN KERJA SAMA UNTUK DEMOKRASI DAN KEADILAN

Final Report 2010

Tahun Penuh Ujian bagi Akuntabilitas Pemerintahan Sipil

I. INTRODUCTION:

To Indonesia, Papua is like a conquered territory, full of enemies, where developments in theterritory are marked by fear and violence. Approaches made to the regions tend to be reactiveand instructional. Papua Nationalism even sees Indonesia is undertaking practices ofneocoloniasm. This has never built a good trust between the two parties, instead of hurtingeach other. The current relation is filled with envies and compulsion. Developments occurunder exploitation of forces, instead of mutual interest.

During 2010, legal and human rights conditions in Papua were varied. Although, in responseto certain demonstrations, security apparatuses have relatively been cooperative, crimeagainst humanity reappear in various forms. 2010 is Tahun Penuh Ujian bagi AkuntabilitasPemerintahan Sipil (the year to put civil government’s accountability to the test). 2010 wasillustrated by government’s failure to reform itself and implement policies from the centralgovernment to the remote corners.

Potrait of major events sparked in 2010:

1. Local government elections (Pilkada) in a number of places have shaped civil society intopolitical interests that destroy previous relations. To bureaucrats, Pilkada has triggeredconflicts when supports were gained and facilities were misused among bureaucrats andhave affected carriers at certain periods.

2. Autonomy, particularly, special autonomy has been interpreted according to what anycentral or local government institution would seek for. Coordination between provincegovernment and kabupaten/kota is hardly found. Policies made by province governmenthave been easily neglected by kabupaten/kota governments. Likewise, policies atprovince level have not been pushed into one direction. Central government has stillplayed the role as the decision maker and sole justifier of all policies in Papua.

3. A number of violent actions occur almost in every corner which create terror and fear toboth Papuans and Non Papuans. Anybody could seemingly be the target of violenceincluding shootings, tortures and murders. Relations among institutions, groups andindividuals are worsening. This can be seen from certain sectarian clash in Nafri andYoka cases. Particular regions have been the focus of violence at particular period in theform of torture, attacks, gun fight as was in Puncak Jaya.

4. Quality of health service and education are decreasing whereas number of HIV_Aids anddomestic violence are increasing. Liquor circulation and consumption has not beencontrolled. Natural resources, land reclaiming and bigger city crime have alsooverwhelmed Papua, particularly Jayapura.

II.FACTUAL ACCOUNTS OF EVENTS

A. Local Government Election (Pilkada) of Kota and kabupaten

1. Most of the political parties are not ready to live in a democracy. Money politic is anunusual scene in making a decision of pledging support for certain candidate andpolitical party leaders’ double support and intervention at national level.

2. The instrument of Pilkada that is kota/kabupaten’s General Election Commission(KPU) and coprs of apparatuses at sub-district and kampong levels do not have goodknowledge of their job description which lead them to be trapped in certain politicalinterest. Bribery has been linked to members of KPU Kota Jayapura to get acandidate through the election. Retired members of KPU allegedly held votingdistension and processed the Pilkada. Substitions to members of KPU have beenmade in several kabupaten.

3. Voters and political party’s poor political education and control system havecontributed to certain problems in KPU regarding ballot count. The candidates claimlawsuits against each other at the Constitutional Court with various decisions such asballot recount at certain sub-districts (in Merauke) or holding another election (not asecond round election) and where the KPU included candidates who were excluded inthe previous selection (Kota Jayapura).

4. Mass mobilization did not only occur during campaign processes but it had beenmanaged long before the campaign through attributes or facilities of which concernedwith general public interest.

B. Government administration

1. The relation between DPRP and governor is in disharmony since the inauguration ofmembers and board of chairs of DPRP in October 2009. The governor sometimes donot reply to DPRP’s invitation. The tension was high when it was the time to discussMRP Decree Number 14 of 2009. In the session of the Regional Budget, DPRPviewed that the governor had reduced totally DPRP’s functions and authorities. Theaccumulation of the tension has partly promoted DPRP to carry out Judicial Reviewof the Clause 1(a) of chapter 7 of Special Autonomy Law which then was abrogatedunder Law Number 35 of 2008. Now, DPRP wants the clause to be reincorporated sogovernor election will be managed by DPRP.

2. The long dispute between DPRP, MRP and Governor at times creates tendency toredirect the dispute to Jakarta. In fact, Jakarta has been fooling around localgovernments so many times. Unfortunately, the frequent meetings with Jakarta havenot come to a better negotiation, but dissapointment.

3. The governor’s leadership style has brought in another impression, especially whenhe moved his daily office to the province state house instead of the governor’s officebuilding. During Christmas the governor has been noted to leave Jayapura. Thusinteraction between the governor and the people and the bureaucrats is limited, likethe Turkam program (village visits).

4. DPRP have not worked maximally because internal problems such as lack ofcoordination and communication among DPRP’s chairs and only one vice chair isactive. Members of DPRP as members of political parties, in the beginning of theirperiod, were occupied with the Pilkada processes in several kabupatens and kota thatmade it difficult for them to focus on their functions at the parliament. Thecommissions at the House have not functioned maximally because problems areseemingly dealt only by particular commissions. Decisions made in the ConventionBoard (Badan Musyawarah, small plenary at DPRP) have at times been changed aswell as decisions made by budget board. The other instrument, Legislation Board,was established in August 2010.

5. The materials of the provincial regulations (Perdasi) and the local special regulations(Perdasus) that have been stipulated in 2010 have not yet known and been socialized.MRP still questions some contents of the Perdasus because MRP suspected that itsconsideration and approval have not been accomodated. Similarly, the Perdasus onMRP membership has been approved; however, the final content of the Perdasus isstill questioned.

6. The session process of the regional budget (APBD) in DPRP did not proceedaccording to the mechanism because the session 2011’s budget has been carried outearlier before the session on 2010 annual budget (ABT) where Ministry of Domestic

Affairs’ Decree (Permendagri) Number 13 of 2006 was applied, not Perdasus Number1 of 2007. There is an indication of different regional budget documents used namely,the documents proposed by government work unit (SKPD) under governor’s approvalthrough the secretary of province and that included in the PPA/S book submitted toDPRP. The amount of fund listed in PPA/S book has always been a huge budgetplatform which is ironically not known to the SKPD. Another PPA/S book has alsothe same content as it in the previous years for particular SKPD.

7. MRP as a cultural body hardly played its power to the end of its period. Insights,inputs, even threats that had been developed by MRP had not been seriouslyresponded by the government. MRP decree Number 14 of 2009 on Regent/ViceRegent and Major/Deputy Major have to be native Papuans as an effort to interpretthe explanatory article of Article 20, Paragraph (1) Letter f of the Special AutonomyLaw has become a polemic which has brought an impact to some political activitiesand demonstrations in 2010. Demonstration staged by DPRP Taskforce Team in theMinistry of Domestic Affairs Office Building in Jakarta and MRP’s GrandConvention (Mubes MRP) in reaction to MRP’s Decree Number 14 of 2009 tersebut.Di sisi lain, ada juga kelompok yang menolak SK MRP tersebut.

8. Government does not have strong will to respond to disappointed actions such as thedemonstration on 18 June 2010 where 11 petitions, the results of MRP GrandConvention, were stated. Authorities are allegedly claiming each other’s blame toavoid being responsible. As a result, the demand has not been followed up to date byany institution either DPRP or executives. Whether MRP is still consistent in fightingfor the aspiration is still questioned as if no correlation can be made betweenaspiration and attitudes sohwn.

9. The success gained by Barisan Merah Putih (Red-White Guard) in fighthing for 11chairs in DPRP has brought up polemic because it is grounded on an arguments thatthe chairs are to match number of DPRP’s members which is considered lackingnationalism. Besides, the decision made by the Constitutional Court is a one-timedecision (einmalig).

10. Coalition of the central highland’s parliaments has requested for a change in thedistribution of special autonomy funds to the regions which has to be managedproportionally while the amount needs to be increased for infrastructural sector.Special autonomy funds have received an increase in 2010 including infrastructuralfund. The regional budget planning which combine special autonomy funds withother funding sources has raised a suspicion that budget duplication is beingmaintained, yet it is hard to control the utilization of the funds.

11. Suspicion around abuse of special autonomy funds keeps haunting certainbureaucrats. However, no concrete measures have been taken by law enforcers tofollow up the cases. Take, for example, the case of the building of a number of state-owned houses that brought Jhon Ibo and the case of the building of roads inKabupaten Sorong Selatan which also brought the Head of Regional Finance andAsset Management Board (BPKAD). Even, Papua police also found 50 motorcyclesgiven away directly by the governor and head of regional finance and assetmanagement. The supply of the motocycles has once been questioned since itsfunding was not incorporated in the regional budget (APBD). Allegation aroundcorruptive behaviors are also linked to the provision of barges in Kabupaten BovenDigoel, the construction of school buildings in Distrik Kimaam, Merauke, and theconstruction of religious affairs office building in Kabupaten Supiori.

12. The governor’s superior policy on RESPEK has been suggested to merit a reviewincluding the sharing of the fund to the entire kabupatens and kotas. The amount ofthe fund received by a kampung (RESPEK, PNPM Mandiri, ADK, etc.) ranges from300 – 600 million/year. The funds have not been utilized maximally: around 40%-80%, which mainly allocated for building infrastructures and not buildingproductivity in economy. In some regions, the funds are spread to communitymembers or spent by certain groups of people. Hence, circulation of the funds forconsumptive reasons at kampongs is progressing. Another unfavorable impact is anew way of living style is emerging. People who used to work hard to make moneycertain kinds of ‘earning period’ no have to stay on the funds as their regular paymentor salary, like government employees.

C. Violence Rate and Security Condition

1. The flag raisings are still in effect, for example, the flag raising in Kampong Waro,Yahokimo, 12 May 2010, by 60 pre-service civil servant, yet it was denied byYahokimo Regent. Another flag raising occurred in Demta on 10 October 2010 andin Wamena on 20 November 2010. The hoisters related the raising to certain traditionthey embrace, similar to the action in Kapeso field in 2009. The belief of the comingof a great savior is again revived through certain traditional media (traditional houseand worships) as part of how they reflect on their distrust and desperation for what ishappening.

2. Violence by cold steel has appeared in various forms. Some of the perpetrators areeasily identified. Some of them are, for example, the shooting in Expo Waena on 27May 2010, the shooting on 15 September 2010 which allegedly linked to ManokwariPolice Brigade’s Company C, the shooting of a member of Petapa from Papua

Traditional Council (DAP) at Wamena Airport on 4 October 2010 and the shootingof a prisoner in BTN Tanah Hitam housing complex when security personel is on asearch upon Nafri case on 21 November 2010. Legal processes of these unlawfulactions are moving still. Some other actions left with no perpetrators identified, forexample, that which come to a creditor who was shot on his commission in Boroway,15 desember 2010.

3. Beside, public has reported on an alleged security personnel involvement in otherviolent actions such as Edina Tabuni (25) who was shot by stray bullet when she wastrying to pacify clash between security personnel and community at Sinak, KabupatenPuncak. Another stray bullet-shot occurred when police were chasing the suspect of akilling in Transito, Maro, Merauke in Juni 2010 and the shooting of Yawan Yuweniin Serui as well as similar case in Bolakme,Wamena, on 1 December 2010. No claimshave been made by both the military and police for their ivolvement. In addition,there is an indication that a number of attacks or firing contacts have not beenpublished widely. Different numbers of violence are focused in certain places such asPuncak Jaya (the shooting incident which killed a police brigade officer on 15February 2010 and the shooting of a worker from PT Modern in April 2010.

4. Violence among civilians are also heightening like the ethnic conflict in Nafri andthen in Yoka on 17 November 2010. The breaking of Wamena KP3 Precinct Policeoffice building due to disappointment upon the raid and shooting of a member ofPetapa DAP in Wamena airport on 4 December 2010; the breaking of PT Sinar MasManagement Office building in Lereh by the company’s workers because of thecompany’s prohibition of a religious building construction; and the breaking ofJayapura city police office building on 26 October 2010 as a result of the ethnicconflict in Sentani.

5. A video that showed a violent action by several military apparatuses was respondedwith an instant trial to avoid the case to be charged as human rights abuse and facetrial in human right court. Charges applied to the suspects are denials of superior’scommand while the court failed to consider the case as torture against civilians. Thisis clear as the victim’s witnesses were not held into investigation.

6. Humanitarian workers and religious figures have still been living in terrors as whatRev. Socrates S. Yoman, Leader of BPP Baptist Church, and chair of has been facingand chair of DAP as well as tightened security checking for visitors of the trial of thevideotaped tortures carried out by military personnel at Jayapura military court. Thedeath of Juby’s journalist, Ardiansyah, in Merauke is still a mystery. It even createdtension between journalists and police when police is considered unable to reveal themystery of the journalist’s death. Security apparatuses’ infiltration into many

institutions and professions has continued to work such as in bureaucracy andjournalism.

7. Violent action is like a cycle: violence for violence. News around various shootingincidents around or near the city and the finding of a house identified as a homebase(in the city) of TPN/OPM (Papuan Free Movement Organization) have indicated thatviolence can happen everywhere and to anybody. Ironically, when an incidentoccurred, the ball is thrown to find the perpetrator. People can hardly obtain accurateinformation, even they are provoked to set their lives in a condition where they haveto corner, oppose and envy each other.

8. Civil institutions and civil society are lacking power to protect themselves and carryon their functions. The role of police in handling problems in public is stillquestioned, especially in the recent cases where police is accompanied by militaryconducting operation as, for example, in pursuing the perpetrator of the cases inNafri, 21 November 2010. Military security has also carry out their own operation,for example, when they were in search of Lambert Pkikir on 18 November 2010 inKampong Workwana.

D. Economy, Social and Cultural conditions

1. The demand for a market building for mama-mama asli Papua (Papuan middle agedwomen vendors) was responded at the end of 2010 with the opening of a temporarymarket building. Some people suspected that it is the governor’s effort to generatesupport for the upcoming governor’s election. Some others are worried about thechoosing of the location which is considered unsuitable which may create socialproblems such as traffic problems and waste disposal. Thus appropriate care isneeded.

2. The reopening of the central market building Hamadi since the beginning ofSeptember 2010 has created several problems since no right decisions have beenmade about shoproom ownership, shoproom rate and struggling over shoproombetween the tenants and the land owner. There is also an indication that the frontshoprooms are owned by Kota Jayapura parliament members.

3. Earth quake in Wasior on 5 October 2010 has become a lesson learning to managenatural resources and forest with maximum care and not only orienting at economicinterest. The handling of the aftermath has to be integrative including medicaltreatment, rehabilitation, economic, social and psychological care. Furthermore,facility support from the local government should be put in effect. Such condition hasproven that prevention and emergency care system have not been maintained

maximally. Prior to the disaster, floods have stricken 11 sub districts in Jayawijyaearly April 2010. A Malaria plaque which killed around 40 people in several subdistricts of Kabupaten Intan Jaya and another earth quake in Kaimana on 30September 2010.

4. The MIFEE project was an issue around natural resources management sent forth in2010 which threatens the lose of land rights permanently. It has been predicted that ahuge wave of work force will enter Papua, specifically Merauke. This results inpractices of marginalization pushed down to Papuans in wider scope. The centralgovernment, province and kabupaten’s governments overlap each other as a result ofdifferent legal references. Natural resources have been illegally exploited. Publicreclaiming properties appeared as the barring of the container dock in Depapre inSeptember 2010 , Sentani Airport on 29 November 2010 and 17 December 2010 anda school building in Yobeh, Sentani, Kabupaten Jayapura. This occurs whengovernment refuses to keep promises or to some extent land rights have beentransferred to other parties without prior traditional meeting tempted by consumptiveliving style.

5. Health problems were marked by poor health management and institutions. Hospitalfacilities, quality service and sanitary, primarily main hospital (referred hospital) isdiminishing. In 2010, Papua province government had budgeted 25 billion rupiahs tosupply of special autonomy funded medicines (Obat Otsus); however, there was anindication of a growing secret trade of Obat Otsus between certain pharmacies anddoctors. As a result, patients are charged with commercial medicines instead of thegeneric (subsidized) ones. Moreover, at the hospitals businesses are set up bysupplying medicines which exceeds the actual number of patients. Consequently, thepeople’s rights to get better health care have to be neglected. Internal conflict isanother factor which linked to health practitioners’ welfare which resulted in severalprotests. Take, for example, a demonstration staged by nurses and midwives of MitraMasyarakat Hospital in Mimika and of the public hospital, Dok II, Jayapura.

6. The basic problem in educational sector is quality service provided by educationalinstitution and the shifting from education for knowledge to education for qualifyingcertain positions. Supports for private education are almost far from what can beexpected, yet such education has also given greater contribution for natural resourcesdevelopment in Papua. On the one hand, teachers domiciling remote areas usuallyhave to abandon the duty for the sake of welfare and security without considerablesactions imposed. On the other hand, mechanism in the methods of promotionsometimes are not taken care properly that forces the teachers to deal with anypromotional proceedings by themselves at Kota’s office of education.

7. Social criminal activities like domestic violence (KDRT), traffic accidents, murders,rapes, tortures, fights, and fraud have sometimes been driven by liquors (miras).Although some kabupatens have issued regulations on banning liquor, its distributionand selling have still been maintaining illegally. Certain high rank governmentofficials have to spare their time to fly to places (other kabupatens) which do nothave regulations on liquor, so that they can enjoy liquor drinking. The Governor ofPapua has promised that the government will pass a Perdasi on liquor distribution(August 2010), yet it has never been put into effect.

E. Civil Movement Conditions

1. Civil movements tend to be weakening and losing synergy. Coalition of NGOs andreligious institutions is limited due to internal and external problems faced by therespective institutions. The intensity of NGOs’ activities working in Legal andHuman Rights is diminishing. Similarly, customary communities are notconsolidated properly. The local government elections have also occupied variouselements of civil society like NGOs, women groups, traditional institutions, youthgroups and religious institutions activities for political agendas.

2. Several efforts toward consolidation among civil society have started to work eventhough it has not been quite solid. Claims which have been formulated still reflect oneither side’s programs which may contradict each other’s and prevent negotiations atmaximum level. At the same time, a lot of offers kept testing each group and figure’scommitment and consistency in particular civil society.

3. Attempts to break the power which posed dilemma among civil society in Papuahave still been maintained by government. Such actions include, for example,repatriation of Nicolas Jouwe from the Netherlands and making him the pro NKRI(Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia) as well as backing up IGSSAPRIactgivities. Another attempt is by publishing and campaigning the book “Integrityhas been finished” (Integras Telah Selesai). The book took a writing from ALDP’sblogspot without permission, pages 55-64 to counter the book “Papua Road Map”published by LIPI. Another attempt is by establishing Customary Community Houseto reduce DAP’s power as well as campaigning and forming a forum for constructivecommunication to stand head to head with the concept of Papua-Jakarta Dialog.

4. Pressure for Indonesian government on foreign agencies including foreign embassiescarrying out activities in Papua has created waries and disappointments. Civil societyhave often been used as justification. They have been invited to give presentations onproblems in Papua whereas implementation of the program is conversely shiftedmuch to governmental issues. Foreign agencies tend to choose rely on ‘super

smooth’ policies. In return, the foreign agencies have also contributed to neglectingreal problems in Papua. Foreign agencies seem to weaken the power of civil societyand support government practices of corruption. Financial control and accountabilitymechanism is much more transparent conducted by civil society that government.Government incorporates all funding sources in its regional budget which potentialof duplicating activities from different funding sources.

5. The rate of embassies’ visit to Papua tends to be high and always statestraightforwardly their support on the existence of Papua within the unitary state ofthe Republic of Indonesia. These visits coincide with Papua case which is beinginternationalized and rolled on from the same family of Pacific countries to Asia,Europe, and America, for example, the Congress Hearing on 22-23 September 2010in USA.

F. Dialog Discourse

1. Socialization of the Papua-Jakarta Dialog concept have continuously carried outprimarily by Papua Peace Network (Jaringan Damai Papua-JDP) which actuallyrepresents civil society elements coordinated by Dr. Neles Tebay and Dr. MuridanSatrio Widjojo. yang merupakan keterwakilan dari komponen masyarakat sipildengan koordinator Dr.Neles Tebay dan Dr.Muridan Satrio Widjojo. JDP’s positionhas been criticized between those who are for and against NKRI. The dialog conceptgrows widely. People started to explore and improve what the know about theconcept, for example, an awareness of the many problems which have not beensettled in Papua. Besides, communication which has found its dead lock around theterm “Papua” among different levels. Whether Papua which deals with ethnicity orPapua which represents common problems and interest. It shows that the Papua-Jakarta Dialog concept has its academic and critical tenets.

2. When President SBY asserted that it is important to build a constructivecommunication to settle problems in Papua in his speech on 16 August 2010, whichindicates that the dialog has progressively discussed at government levels. To certainparties, the dialog has been confronted with the idea of constructive communication.Substantially, both concepts put forward solutions to problems in Papua withoutviolence since there are no principle grounds to exclude either concept, instead ofdiscussing precisely collectively.

G. Government Approaches

1. Government approaches, to this day, have oriented at improving people’s welfareespecially through RESPEK program. In contrast, fulfillment of human rights interms of civil political rights (freedom of expression and obtaining legal protection)as stipulated under Special Autonomy Law which include, policy coordination inPapua, National Human Rights Commission (KOMNAS HAM), Human RightsCourt, KKR, Legal Ad Hoc Commission and recognition of identity such as culturalsymbols and flag or local political parties have not been put into effect seriously.Civil political problems have been exploited for authorities’ political reasons throughmilitary approaches which is detrimental to civil society.

2. Legal approach has still been used for the sake of reducing critical voices as part ofgovernment’s unwillingness to be corrected. The law enforcers’ work load,specifically the police, without better facility supports, will carry on their tasks fromjust one investigation process to another investigation where each investigationprocess will never be completed, especially when it deals with political affair. A casehas not yet been settled, when another case steps in.

3. The way a correctional house take care of its problems has not been considerablychanged. When there is a disturbance in a correctional house, the prison guards willlock cells, shut the power down, they enter prisoners’ cells accompanied by securitypersonel where they beat prisoners and transfer them to police detention for arelatively longer period. A good example of it is what Philep Karma and BuktarTabuni cs have gone through. Such approach obviously violates authority of the civilauthorities like Head of the Regional Office of Law and Human Rights who isapparently in charge of the prisoners or convicts at a correctional house. Theproposition of granting amnesty to a political prisoner/detainee (TAPOL/NAPOL)proposed by the Minister of Law and Human Rights in his viist to Jayapura hasraised pros and cons from various parties. Some political convicts reject the idea. It isthought to be merely a political move and not the seriously taken. So far, suchclemency has been granted to Yusak Pakage.

4. In educational sector, the joint program between Papua and Australia to send 20teachers to the country or installing 600 hired teachers have not brought significantimpact to settle educational problems in Papua such as quality of teaching andlearning and avalaibility of better ficilities. As a result, the final produce of sucheducational process does not result in a competitive gain. Skillful practitioners havestill been brought from outside Papua. Likewise, in health sector, the many jointprojects and funding sources have not been able to bring significant impact onquality of health service or increasing life expectancy in Papua. The number of HIV-Aids cases and maternal deaths are still high as well as higher cases of particularendemic diseases.

5. The increase in the amount of the special autonomy funds can not settle the basicproblems native Papuans are dealing with. SBY’s promises to carry out evaluation onthe Special Autonomy Law and to make efforts for the formation of UP4B have notbeen realized.

III. 2011 CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CHALLENGES

1. The Special Autonomy Law will become a debatable issue even though it mostlycovers topics on its implementation whereas the substantial matters will enterpolitical areas. The debate over definition of Papuan in the Special Autonomy Lawwill continue and complicate a number of regulations at local level. On anotherangle, the demand for a wider definition of native Papuan and Papuan identity willsoon be another issue. Jakarta will also put an effort to reduce the policy on identity.If so, what is special in the Special Autonomy Law?

2. Judicial Review processes and decessions at the Constitutional Court claimed byDPRP, whatever they may be will raise the tension between DPRP and the governor,after all local government election is approaching. The process of governor electionhas started to bring the people to be split into certain political interests, especiallycertain figures have been reported ready to register as candidates and have startedtheir campaigns in various forms.

3. The special autonomy law affirms that candidate governors have to be nativePapuans which then gives room for internal conflict among Papuans. The propagandaof originality between Papuans who inhabit highlands and those who inhabit coastalareas will be heightened.

4. Other political processes such as MRP member election and installing 11 chairsbased on the Special Autonomy Law will prolong horizontal conflict between civilsociety and local government.

5. The handling of different kinds of corruption cases will face wider challenges. Thechallenges will come from different parties including wider support form massmedia. Thus, police and attorney office will be forced to work on their maximumperformance.

6. The demand for fulfillment of the basic rights as mandated in special autonomy lawwill be continuously brought into discussions regarding especially law and human

rights as well as the rights for better economy, education and health. Naturalresources and land in particular will potentially raise conflicts, as MIFEE case, goldmining in Degewo Nabire, Nickel mining investment in Depapre, etc. Landreclamation for a number of investments will occur all over again while regulationshave not been in favor of costumary community.

7. The concept of the dialog will be spread out and open to wider responses. There willprobably actions toward segregation and reactions to cut through of an intention tocome to status quo or to take over the concept of the dialog for particular interests.

8. Issues around security will be sensitive issues due to seberal factors a) securitymeasures have still been kept exclusive without explanation of involvement ofcertain parties, for example, military involvement in a raid or other types ofoperation; b) the deployment of non organic troops is still in progress; c) differentsecurity and intelligence units have worked within limited coordinations and tend topass on information within respective network which makes it difficult for theauthoirity holders to obtain considerable input on security condition in Papua; theinput is partial that leads to policy oriented to the respective units’ carrier promotion.

9. The number of violence will still go up in various forms. A number of police failureto reveal a previous case will give wider opportunity for other parties to intensifyviolent actions.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The government should have be aware and recognize that fact that the SpecialAutonomy Law has failed to satisfy its policy to give priority, security and justice toPapuans. Such conditions require intensive revision to the law to bring improvementsand other substantial changes. Policies made have to touch all aspects, not only thepeople’s welfare but also civil political concerns which have to be taken seriously.UP4B’s formation is necessary; otherwise it will face its failure as what the SpecialAutonomy Law has faced.

2. Any parties should enrich their views and understanding of others, specificallyPapuans so as to avoid being trapped in misleading stigmatization and conclusions. Italso includes reformulation of the definitions which have distorted views and actionstaken in settling problems in Papuak for instance “Autonomy” and “Native Papuans’.

3. The government has to specifically raise its concern about human rights fulfillmentespecially civil political rights as stipulated in the Special Autonomy law. Concretepolitical attitudes and supports have to be actualized to torture victims throughregulations, institutionalization, fair legal processes and other necessities.Reformation in security sector needs to be carried out as an important part of humanrights implementation like revisiting intelligence and infiltration systems in civilbureaucracy, coordinated security system which involves local authority and respectother authority holders.

4. Relation among local civil governments should be redesigned and they should resettleinternal problems within the respective institutions. They should stick to institutionalmechanism and will to build both formal and informal communication maxicammallyin an effort to strengthen civil society’s consolidation.

5. Transparency and professionalism have become absolute conditions to enforce law inorder to avoid power and money politic intervention into various corruption cases.Along with it, it is necessary to make improvement in correctional system in acorrectional house, provisions of facilities in order to satisfy the rights of prisonersincluding developing productive activities.

6. Greater attention should be put in educational sector to create qualified humanresources from primary to tertiary education in particular private tertiary educationalsystem. The quality of health service has to be totatlly improved in terms of itsmanagerial system, facilities as well as the human resources undertaking educationaland health works.

7. Natural resources management and transfer of function for the interest of economicsake should be equipped with analysis of social and economic transformation by thechanges the society will face. The market building for Mama-Mama Papua has to beaccompanied with necessary protection regarding commodities on sale by consideringthe sociocultural conditions which have traditionally shaped the Mama-Mama’sculture of trade. By doing so, the building will be utilized maximally andcommodities on sale will not directly compete with large capital businesses.

8. The campaign for Papua-Jakarta Dialog will be intensifying in the form of supportsbeside political interests which will try to interfere with it. The agenda of resolutionof problems in Papua without violence proposed through the dialog will widen thesupports and involvements of different parties. Therefore, socialization andinternalization of the dialog to various society elements need to be intensified.

9. Various foreign agencies who have pay attention to problems in Papua should also beaware that beside their support in terms of giving solutions to Indonesian governmentthrough their representatives in Jakarta, they also need to create new opportunities inorder that the developed relations can be maintained synergically and it does notnecessary mean exploitation of information sources and the civil society’s inability.

IV. ALDP IN INSTITUTION:

1. There are 9 ALDP staffs which comprise 5 female and 4 males. Needs of office facilitiesand infrastructures have continued to be equipped and improved to create comfortablework place and encourage professionalism at work. To AlDP, the available humanresources which consist of ALDP staffs and potential groups or individuals. Therefore,ALDP give access to students, traditional communities and women to be involvedactively in ALDP’s activities both internally and in different activities around NGOs andother organization on their capacities and needs. By doing so, transformation ofawareness and knowledge to the potential groups can be achieved at a wider scale.

2. In the end of the year, ALDP made several strategic changes to improve and strengtheninstitutional vision and mission. The changes include: (a) adding new organizationalstructure that is Board of Management that consist of Fr. Jhon Jonga, Paskalis Kosay,Theo Van Den Broek, Weynand Watory and Poengky Indarwaty; (b) the change in thestructure of the executive board namely, the Head of ALDP becomes ALDP Directorwhich include Deputy Director; (c) the change in division under Executive Boardstructure. 2 program divisions namely Democracy and Justice Division, Finance Divisionand General Administration Division.

3. Selection of a region for a particular period of time (indicator: marginalized and violencerelated issues) and determining a potential group (indicator: marginalized and potentialsuch as DAP, students and women) are main approaches when the organization carriesout a program. ALDP’s capacity is focused on legal assistance and communityorganization (including trainings). Responses are varied based on community’s initiativesand needs (potential groups and individuals).

4. Chances and institutional network are widely open (locally, nationally, and international).Meanwhile, the demand for increasing staffs’ roles, professionalism and performancehave also been developed through supplies, trainings, and internalization of montlymeeting materials and program up to strategic changes.

5. In the middle of 2010, there was an agenda on restoring human rights institution inPapua, but it did not perfectly maintained. As a result of ineffective communicationpattern and meeting cycle, every NGO has to work on its annual agenda. In the light

human rights, ALDP with such limited capacity tried to make some steps to take certaincases based on its ability which maintained through coalition and self-sufficiency.

6. Generally, in 2010, most of ALDP’s activities still carry on 2009’s work agenda, forexample, Discussion on Cross Ethnic Peace (oriented at strategic groups in the city) byincluding the program Cross Ethnic Kampong Discussion (oriented at transmigrationsettlements and the surroundings). In addition to that, human rights institutional buildingas civil political rights in special autonomy law and raising awareness of women righs toprevent HIV-Aids spread as well as Anti Torture Campaign are still implemented. Anumber of meetings were also attended, for example psychosocial based conflictmanagement network conducted by IRCT in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Besides, ALDP alsoattended the following meetings: Peace and Justice Network in San Diego, USA; Forumfor Peace Reconciliation in Rome, Italy; and JDP Facilitator Training. It also joined thecampaign for Papua-Jakarta Dialog and Women Group Discussion on UN ResolutionNumber 1325 on Women Participation in Round-Table. Moreover, it was also incoalitions for several cases such as the following cases: Wamena, 4 Oktober 2010; Flagraising in Demta, 10 Oktober 2010; religious house construction within the palm oilcompany, PT Sinar Mas’ territory in Lereh; advocacy of the natural resources conflict inDepapre; coalition of the Anti Torture against Women Day; and various meetings at bothlocal and national levels.

Jayapura, 10 January 2011