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 the
territory are marked by fear and violence. Approaches made to the regions tend to be reactive
and instructional. Papua Nationalism even sees Indonesia is undertaking practices of
neocoloniasm. This has never built a good trust between the two parties, instead of hurting
each other. The current relation is filled with envies and compulsion. Developments occur
under exploitation of forces, instead of mutual interest.

During 2010, legal and human rights conditions in Papua were varied. Although, in response
to certain demonstrations, security apparatuses have relatively been cooperative, crime
against humanity reappear in various forms. 2010 is Tahun Penuh Ujian bagi Akuntabilitas
Pemerintahan Sipil (the year to put civil government’s accountability to the test). 2010 was
illustrated by government’s failure to reform itself and implement policies from the central
government 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 into
political interests that destroy previous relations. To bureaucrats, Pilkada has triggered
conflicts when supports were gained and facilities were misused among bureaucrats and
have affected carriers at certain periods.
2. Autonomy, particularly, special autonomy has been interpreted according to what any
central or local government institution would seek for. Coordination between province
government and kabupaten/kota is hardly found. Policies made by province government
have been easily neglected by kabupaten/kota governments. Likewise, policies at
province level have not been pushed into one direction. Central government has still
played 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 to
both Papuans and Non Papuans. Anybody could seemingly be the target of violence
including shootings, tortures and murders. Relations among institutions, groups and
individuals are worsening. This can be seen from certain sectarian clash in Nafri and
Yoka cases. Particular regions have been the focus of violence at particular period in the
form of torture, attacks, gun fight as was in Puncak Jaya.
4. Quality of health service and education are decreasing whereas number of HIV_Aids and
domestic violence are increasing. Liquor circulation and consumption has not been
controlled. Natural resources, land reclaiming and bigger city crime have also
overwhelmed 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 an
unusual scene in making a decision of pledging support for certain candidate and
political 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 good
knowledge of their job description which lead them to be trapped in certain political
interest. Bribery has been linked to members of KPU Kota Jayapura to get a
candidate through the election. Retired members of KPU allegedly held voting
distension and processed the Pilkada. Substitions to members of KPU have been
made in several kabupaten.

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

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

B. Government administration
1. The relation between DPRP and governor is in disharmony since the inauguration of
members and board of chairs of DPRP in October 2009. The governor sometimes do
not reply to DPRP’s invitation. The tension was high when it was the time to discuss
MRP Decree Number 14 of 2009. In the session of the Regional Budget, DPRP
viewed that the governor had reduced totally DPRP’s functions and authorities. The
accumulation of the tension has partly promoted DPRP to carry out Judicial Review
of the Clause 1(a) of chapter 7 of Special Autonomy Law which then was abrogated
under Law Number 35 of 2008. Now, DPRP wants the clause to be reincorporated so
governor election will be managed by DPRP.

2. The long dispute between DPRP, MRP and Governor at times creates tendency to
redirect the dispute to Jakarta. In fact, Jakarta has been fooling around local
governments so many times. Unfortunately, the frequent meetings with Jakarta have
not come to a better negotiation, but dissapointment.

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

4. DPRP have not worked maximally because internal problems such as lack of
coordination and communication among DPRP’s chairs and only one vice chair is
active. Members of DPRP as members of political parties, in the beginning of their
period, were occupied with the Pilkada processes in several kabupatens and kota that
made it difficult for them to focus on their functions at the parliament. The
commissions at the House have not functioned maximally because problems are
seemingly dealt only by particular commissions. Decisions made in the Convention
Board (Badan Musyawarah, small plenary at DPRP) have at times been changed as
well 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 its
consideration and approval have not been accomodated. Similarly, the Perdasus on
MRP membership has been approved; however, the final content of the Perdasus is
still questioned.

6. The session process of the regional budget (APBD) in DPRP did not proceed
according to the mechanism because the session 2011’s budget has been carried out
earlier before the session on 2010 annual budget (ABT) where Ministry of Domestic
 Affairs’ Decree (Permendagri) Number 13 of 2006 was applied, not Perdasus Number
1 of 2007. There is an indication of different regional budget documents used namely,
the documents proposed by government work unit (SKPD) under governor’s approval
through the secretary of province and that included in the PPA/S book submitted to
DPRP. The amount of fund listed in PPA/S book has always been a huge budget
platform which is ironically not known to the SKPD. Another PPA/S book has also
the 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 seriously
responded by the government. MRP decree Number 14 of 2009 on Regent/Vice
Regent and Major/Deputy Major have to be native Papuans as an effort to interpret
the explanatory article of Article 20, Paragraph (1) Letter f of the Special Autonomy
Law has become a polemic which has brought an impact to some political activities
and demonstrations in 2010. Demonstration staged by DPRP Taskforce Team in the
Ministry of Domestic Affairs Office Building in Jakarta and MRP’s Grand
Convention (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 the
demonstration on 18 June 2010 where 11 petitions, the results of MRP Grand
Convention, were stated. Authorities are allegedly claiming each other’s blame to
avoid being responsible. As a result, the demand has not been followed up to date by
any institution either DPRP or executives. Whether MRP is still consistent in fighting
for the aspiration is still questioned as if no correlation can be made between
aspiration and attitudes sohwn.

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

10. Coalition of the central highland’s parliaments has requested for a change in the
distribution of special autonomy funds to the regions which has to be managed
proportionally while the amount needs to be increased for infrastructural sector.
Special autonomy funds have received an increase in 2010 including infrastructural
fund. The regional budget planning which combine special autonomy funds with
other funding sources has raised a suspicion that budget duplication is being
maintained, yet it is hard to control the utilization of the funds.
 11. Suspicion around abuse of special autonomy funds keeps haunting certain
bureaucrats. However, no concrete measures have been taken by law enforcers to
follow 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 in
Kabupaten Sorong Selatan which also brought the Head of Regional Finance and
Asset Management Board (BPKAD). Even, Papua police also found 50 motorcycles
given away directly by the governor and head of regional finance and asset
management. The supply of the motocycles has once been questioned since its
funding was not incorporated in the regional budget (APBD). Allegation around
corruptive behaviors are also linked to the provision of barges in Kabupaten Boven
Digoel, the construction of school buildings in Distrik Kimaam, Merauke, and the
construction of religious affairs office building in Kabupaten Supiori.

12. The governor’s superior policy on RESPEK has been suggested to merit a review
including the sharing of the fund to the entire kabupatens and kotas. The amount of
the fund received by a kampung (RESPEK, PNPM Mandiri, ADK, etc.) ranges from
300 – 600 million/year. The funds have not been utilized maximally: around 40%-
80%, which mainly allocated for building infrastructures and not building
productivity in economy. In some regions, the funds are spread to community
members or spent by certain groups of people. Hence, circulation of the funds for
consumptive reasons at kampongs is progressing. Another unfavorable impact is a
new way of living style is emerging. People who used to work hard to make money
certain kinds of ‘earning period’ no have to stay on the funds as their regular payment
or 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 by
Yahokimo Regent. Another flag raising occurred in Demta on 10 October 2010 and
in Wamena on 20 November 2010. The hoisters related the raising to certain tradition
they embrace, similar to the action in Kapeso field in 2009. The belief of the coming
of a great savior is again revived through certain traditional media (traditional house
and worships) as part of how they reflect on their distrust and desperation for what is
happening.

2. Violence by cold steel has appeared in various forms. Some of the perpetrators are
easily identified. Some of them are, for example, the shooting in Expo Waena on 27
May 2010, the shooting on 15 September 2010 which allegedly linked to Manokwari
Police 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 shooting
of a prisoner in BTN Tanah Hitam housing complex when security personel is on a
search upon Nafri case on 21 November 2010. Legal processes of these unlawful
actions are moving still. Some other actions left with no perpetrators identified, for
example, 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 other

violent actions such as Edina Tabuni (25) who was shot by stray bullet when she was
trying to pacify clash between security personnel and community at Sinak, Kabupaten
Puncak. Another stray bullet-shot occurred when police were chasing the suspect of a
killing in Transito, Maro, Merauke in Juni 2010 and the shooting of Yawan Yuweni
in Serui as well as similar case in Bolakme,Wamena, on 1 December 2010. No claims
have 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 been
published widely. Different numbers of violence are focused in certain places such as
Puncak Jaya (the shooting incident which killed a police brigade officer on 15
February 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 and
then in Yoka on 17 November 2010. The breaking of Wamena KP3 Precinct Police
office building due to disappointment upon the raid and shooting of a member of
Petapa DAP in Wamena airport on 4 December 2010; the breaking of PT Sinar Mas
Management Office building in Lereh by the company’s workers because of the
company’s prohibition of a religious building construction; and the breaking of
Jayapura city police office building on 26 October 2010 as a result of the ethnic
conflict in Sentani.

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

6. Humanitarian workers and religious figures have still been living in terrors as what
Rev. Socrates S. Yoman, Leader of BPP Baptist Church, and chair of has been facing
and chair of DAP as well as tightened security checking for visitors of the trial of the
videotaped tortures carried out by military personnel at Jayapura military court. The
death of Juby’s journalist, Ardiansyah, in Merauke is still a mystery. It even created
tension between journalists and police when police is considered unable to reveal the
mystery of the journalist’s death. Security apparatuses’ infiltration into many
 institutions and professions has continued to work such as in bureaucracy and
journalism.

7. Violent action is like a cycle: violence for violence. News around various shooting
incidents 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 that
violence can happen everywhere and to anybody. Ironically, when an incident
occurred, the ball is thrown to find the perpetrator. People can hardly obtain accurate
information, even they are provoked to set their lives in a condition where they have
to corner, oppose and envy each other.

8. Civil institutions and civil society are lacking power to protect themselves and carry
on their functions. The role of police in handling problems in public is still
questioned, especially in the recent cases where police is accompanied by military
conducting operation as, for example, in pursuing the perpetrator of the cases in
Nafri, 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 in
Kampong Workwana.

D. Economy, Social and Cultural conditions

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

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

3. Earth quake in Wasior on 5 October 2010 has become a lesson learning to manage
natural resources and forest with maximum care and not only orienting at economic
interest. The handling of the aftermath has to be integrative including medical
treatment, rehabilitation, economic, social and psychological care. Furthermore,
facility support from the local government should be put in effect. Such condition has
proven that prevention and emergency care system have not been maintained
 maximally. Prior to the disaster, floods have stricken 11 sub districts in Jayawijya
early April 2010. A Malaria plaque which killed around 40 people in several sub
districts of Kabupaten Intan Jaya and another earth quake in Kaimana on 30
September 2010.

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

5. Health problems were marked by poor health management and institutions. Hospital
facilities, quality service and sanitary, primarily main hospital (referred hospital) is
diminishing. In 2010, Papua province government had budgeted 25 billion rupiahs to
supply of special autonomy funded medicines (Obat Otsus); however, there was an
indication of a growing secret trade of Obat Otsus between certain pharmacies and
doctors. As a result, patients are charged with commercial medicines instead of the
generic (subsidized) ones. Moreover, at the hospitals businesses are set up by
supplying medicines which exceeds the actual number of patients. Consequently, the
people’s rights to get better health care have to be neglected. Internal conflict is
another factor which linked to health practitioners’ welfare which resulted in several
protests. Take, for example, a demonstration staged by nurses and midwives of Mitra
Masyarakat Hospital in Mimika and of the public hospital, Dok II, Jayapura.

6. The basic problem in educational sector is quality service provided by educational

institution and the shifting from education for knowledge to education for qualifying
certain positions. Supports for private education are almost far from what can be
expected, yet such education has also given greater contribution for natural resources
development in Papua. On the one hand, teachers domiciling remote areas usually
have to abandon the duty for the sake of welfare and security without considerable
sactions imposed. On the other hand, mechanism in the methods of promotion
sometimes are not taken care properly that forces the teachers to deal with any
promotional 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 distribution
and selling have still been maintaining illegally. Certain high rank government
officials have to spare their time to fly to places (other kabupatens) which do not
have regulations on liquor, so that they can enjoy liquor drinking. The Governor of
Papua 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 and
religious institutions is limited due to internal and external problems faced by the
respective institutions. The intensity of NGOs’ activities working in Legal and
Human Rights is diminishing. Similarly, customary communities are not
consolidated properly. The local government elections have also occupied various
elements of civil society like NGOs, women groups, traditional institutions, youth
groups and religious institutions activities for political agendas.

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

3. Attempts to break the power which posed dilemma among civil society in Papua
have 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 IGSSAPRI
actgivities. Another attempt is by publishing and campaigning the book “Integrity
has been finished” (Integras Telah Selesai). The book took a writing from ALDP’s
blogspot without permission, pages 55-64 to counter the book “Papua Road Map”
published by LIPI. Another attempt is by establishing Customary Community House
to reduce DAP’s power as well as campaigning and forming a forum for constructive
communication to stand head to head with the concept of Papua-Jakarta Dialog.

4. Pressure for Indonesian government on foreign agencies including foreign embassies

carrying out activities in Papua has created waries and disappointments. Civil society
have often been used as justification. They have been invited to give presentations on
problems in Papua whereas implementation of the program is conversely shifted
much to governmental issues. Foreign agencies tend to choose rely on ‘super
 smooth’ policies. In return, the foreign agencies have also contributed to neglecting
real problems in Papua. Foreign agencies seem to weaken the power of civil society
and support government practices of corruption. Financial control and accountability
mechanism is much more transparent conducted by civil society that government.
Government incorporates all funding sources in its regional budget which potential
of duplicating activities from different funding sources.

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

F. Dialog Discourse

1. Socialization of the Papua-Jakarta Dialog concept have continuously carried out

primarily by Papua Peace Network (Jaringan Damai Papua-JDP) which actually
represents civil society elements coordinated by Dr. Neles Tebay and Dr. Muridan
Satrio Widjojo. yang merupakan keterwakilan dari komponen masyarakat sipil
dengan koordinator Dr.Neles Tebay dan Dr.Muridan Satrio Widjojo. JDP’s position
has been criticized between those who are for and against NKRI. The dialog concept
grows widely. People started to explore and improve what the know about the
concept, for example, an awareness of the many problems which have not been
settled in Papua. Besides, communication which has found its dead lock around the
term “Papua” among different levels. Whether Papua which deals with ethnicity or
Papua 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 constructive

communication to settle problems in Papua in his speech on 16 August 2010, which
indicates that the dialog has progressively discussed at government levels. To certain
parties, the dialog has been confronted with the idea of constructive communication.
Substantially, both concepts put forward solutions to problems in Papua without
violence since there are no principle grounds to exclude either concept, instead of
discussing precisely collectively.

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

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

3. The way a correctional house take care of its problems has not been considerably
changed. When there is a disturbance in a correctional house, the prison guards will
lock cells, shut the power down, they enter prisoners’ cells accompanied by security
personel where they beat prisoners and transfer them to police detention for a
relatively longer period. A good example of it is what Philep Karma and Buktar
Tabuni cs have gone through. Such approach obviously violates authority of the civil
authorities like Head of the Regional Office of Law and Human Rights who is
apparently in charge of the prisoners or convicts at a correctional house. The
proposition of granting amnesty to a political prisoner/detainee (TAPOL/NAPOL)
proposed by the Minister of Law and Human Rights in his viist to Jayapura has
raised pros and cons from various parties. Some political convicts reject the idea. It is
thought to be merely a political move and not the seriously taken. So far, such
clemency has been granted to Yusak Pakage.

4. In educational sector, the joint program between Papua and Australia to send 20
teachers to the country or installing 600 hired teachers have not brought significant
impact to settle educational problems in Papua such as quality of teaching and
learning and avalaibility of better ficilities. As a result, the final produce of such
educational process does not result in a competitive gain. Skillful practitioners have
still been brought from outside Papua. Likewise, in health sector, the many joint
projects and funding sources have not been able to bring significant impact on
quality 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 particular
endemic diseases.
 5. The increase in the amount of the special autonomy funds can not settle the basic
problems native Papuans are dealing with. SBY’s promises to carry out evaluation on
the Special Autonomy Law and to make efforts for the formation of UP4B have not
been realized.

III. 2011 CHALLENGES AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. CHALLENGES

1. The Special Autonomy Law will become a debatable issue even though it mostly
covers topics on its implementation whereas the substantial matters will enter
political areas. The debate over definition of Papuan in the Special Autonomy Law
will continue and complicate a number of regulations at local level. On another
angle, the demand for a wider definition of native Papuan and Papuan identity will
soon 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 by

DPRP, whatever they may be will raise the tension between DPRP and the governor,
after all local government election is approaching. The process of governor election
has started to bring the people to be split into certain political interests, especially
certain figures have been reported ready to register as candidates and have started
their campaigns in various forms.

3. The special autonomy law affirms that candidate governors have to be native
Papuans which then gives room for internal conflict among Papuans. The propaganda
of originality between Papuans who inhabit highlands and those who inhabit coastal
areas will be heightened.

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

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

6. The demand for fulfillment of the basic rights as mandated in special autonomy law
will be continuously brought into discussions regarding especially law and human
 rights as well as the rights for better economy, education and health. Natural
resources and land in particular will potentially raise conflicts, as MIFEE case, gold
mining in Degewo Nabire, Nickel mining investment in Depapre, etc. Land
reclamation for a number of investments will occur all over again while regulations
have not been in favor of costumary community.

7. The concept of the dialog will be spread out and open to wider responses. There will
probably actions toward segregation and reactions to cut through of an intention to
come 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) security
measures have still been kept exclusive without explanation of involvement of
certain parties, for example, military involvement in a raid or other types of
operation; b) the deployment of non organic troops is still in progress; c) different
security and intelligence units have worked within limited coordinations and tend to
pass on information within respective network which makes it difficult for the
authoirity holders to obtain considerable input on security condition in Papua; the
input 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 failure
to reveal a previous case will give wider opportunity for other parties to intensify
violent actions.

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The government should have be aware and recognize that fact that the Special
Autonomy Law has failed to satisfy its policy to give priority, security and justice to
Papuans. Such conditions require intensive revision to the law to bring improvements
and other substantial changes. Policies made have to touch all aspects, not only the
people’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 Special
Autonomy Law has faced.

2. Any parties should enrich their views and understanding of others, specifically
Papuans so as to avoid being trapped in misleading stigmatization and conclusions. It
also includes reformulation of the definitions which have distorted views and actions
taken in settling problems in Papuak for instance “Autonomy” and “Native Papuans’.
3. The government has to specifically raise its concern about human rights fulfillment
especially civil political rights as stipulated in the Special Autonomy law. Concrete
political attitudes and supports have to be actualized to torture victims through
regulations, institutionalization, fair legal processes and other necessities.
Reformation in security sector needs to be carried out as an important part of human
rights implementation like revisiting intelligence and infiltration systems in civil
bureaucracy, coordinated security system which involves local authority and respect
other authority holders.

4. Relation among local civil governments should be redesigned and they should resettle
internal problems within the respective institutions. They should stick to institutional
mechanism and will to build both formal and informal communication maxicammally
in an effort to strengthen civil society’s consolidation.

5. Transparency and professionalism have become absolute conditions to enforce law in

order to avoid power and money politic intervention into various corruption cases.
Along with it, it is necessary to make improvement in correctional system in a
correctional house, provisions of facilities in order to satisfy the rights of prisoners
including developing productive activities.

6. Greater attention should be put in educational sector to create qualified human

resources from primary to tertiary education in particular private tertiary educational
system. The quality of health service has to be totatlly improved in terms of its
managerial system, facilities as well as the human resources undertaking educational
and health works.

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

8. The campaign for Papua-Jakarta Dialog will be intensifying in the form of supports
beside political interests which will try to interfere with it. The agenda of resolution
of problems in Papua without violence proposed through the dialog will widen the
supports and involvements of different parties. Therefore, socialization and
internalization 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 be
aware that beside their support in terms of giving solutions to Indonesian government
through their representatives in Jakarta, they also need to create new opportunities in
order that the developed relations can be maintained synergically and it does not
necessary 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 facilities
and infrastructures have continued to be equipped and improved to create comfortable
work place and encourage professionalism at work. To AlDP, the available human
resources which consist of ALDP staffs and potential groups or individuals. Therefore,
ALDP give access to students, traditional communities and women to be involved
actively in ALDP’s activities both internally and in different activities around NGOs and
other organization on their capacities and needs. By doing so, transformation of
awareness 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 strengthen
institutional vision and mission. The changes include: (a) adding new organizational
structure 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 the
structure of the executive board namely, the Head of ALDP becomes ALDP Director
which include Deputy Director; (c) the change in division under Executive Board
structure. 2 program divisions namely Democracy and Justice Division, Finance Division
and General Administration Division.

3. Selection of a region for a particular period of time (indicator: marginalized and violence
related issues) and determining a potential group (indicator: marginalized and potential
such as DAP, students and women) are main approaches when the organization carries
out a program. ALDP’s capacity is focused on legal assistance and community
organization (including trainings). Responses are varied based on community’s initiatives
and 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 performance
have also been developed through supplies, trainings, and internalization of montly
meeting materials and program up to strategic changes.

5. In the middle of 2010, there was an agenda on restoring human rights institution in
Papua, but it did not perfectly maintained. As a result of ineffective communication
pattern 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 certain
cases 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, for
example, Discussion on Cross Ethnic Peace (oriented at strategic groups in the city) by
including the program Cross Ethnic Kampong Discussion (oriented at transmigration
settlements and the surroundings). In addition to that, human rights institutional building
as civil political rights in special autonomy law and raising awareness of women righs to
prevent HIV-Aids spread as well as Anti Torture Campaign are still implemented. A
number of meetings were also attended, for example psychosocial based conflict
management network conducted by IRCT in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Besides, ALDP also
attended the following meetings: Peace and Justice Network in San Diego, USA; Forum
for Peace Reconciliation in Rome, Italy; and JDP Facilitator Training. It also joined the
campaign for Papua-Jakarta Dialog and Women Group Discussion on UN Resolution
Number 1325 on Women Participation in Round-Table. Moreover, it was also in
coalitions for several cases such as the following cases: Wamena, 4 Oktober 2010; Flag
raising in Demta, 10 Oktober 2010; religious house construction within the palm oil
company, PT Sinar Mas’ territory in Lereh; advocacy of the natural resources conflict in
Depapre; coalition of the Anti Torture against Women Day; and various meetings at both
local and national levels.

Jayapura, 10 January 2011