Indonesia | ukwatch.net

With Scottish Independence on his Mind...

JamieSW — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:47:10 +0000

...will Gordon Brown be taking Indonesian lessons next month?

Next year or in 2010, the people of Scotland are now almost certain to be given the opportunity to vote in a referendum to choose independence or staying in the United Kingdom. In response, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised to “do whatever is necessary to ensure the stability and maintenance of the Union”. (1)

Next month, Gordon Brown will welcome to Downing Street a leader who knows a thing or two about doing “whatever is necessary” to combat independence movements: the President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Ten years ago, when Yudhoyono was a General in the Indonesian army, he and his military colleagues failed to prevent East Timor from breaking away from Indonesia. They tried to kill off East Timor’s bid for freedom by killing a third of the East Timorese people (2) … but even that wasn’t enough. And now, a decade later, having swapped his General’s uniform for a civilian suit, President Yudhoyono is determined, once again, to do “whatever is necessary” to stop West Papua going the same way.

According to a recent speech by UK Foreign Office Minister, Meg Munn MP, “Indonesia’s experience in East Timor, Aceh and Papua is not simply an internal affair. It can act as a model to others.” (3) With this in mind, it would only be logical for Gordon Brown to ask the Indonesian President’s advice on how to prevent Scottish independence.

Using Indonesia’s “experience” in West Papua as a “model” for what the UK’s “experience in Scotland” could be like, here is how Yudhoyono’s advice to Gordon Brown might sound:

“1) As President of Indonesia, my first advice to you, Prime Minister Brown, is that you must fill Scotland with British military forces. Build British military posts all over Scotland, in the centre of every city and in even the smallest Scottish village. Remember, the main reason for the British military’s existence is to maintain the unity and territorial integrity of the United Kingdom. You can also flood Scotland with British intelligence agents disguised as taxi drivers or shop keepers. Then you will catch as many Scottish separatists as possible. Your British soldiers, police and intelligence agents can then kill them, torture them, rape them, intimidate them and imprison them as a warning to other Scottish separatists.

As your Minister said, Indonesia’s experience in West Papua can act as a model to others: During my four years as President, we have hugely increased the Indonesian military and intelligence presence in West Papua. After one of my military commanders was indicted by the UN for war crimes in East Timor, I promoted him and sent him to West Papua. Since then he has warned the Papuan people "… it is the duty of the TNI [the Indonesian military] to crush any struggle or activity undertaken by any group in the community which tends towards separatism"(4)

Our Indonesian intelligence agents are everywhere in West Papua, disguised as taxi drivers or shop keepers. They catch as many Papuan separatists as possible. Then our Indonesian soldiers, police and intelligence agents can kill them, torture them (5), rape them, intimidate them and imprison them as a warning to other Papuan separatists.

2) I next advise you to BAN the Scottish flag, the Saltire, BAN the National Anthem, “Scotland the Brave” and BAN all other “separatist symbols” such as the thistle and Scottish dancing.

As your Minister said, Indonesia’s experience in West Papua can act as a model to others: We have made it a criminal offence for West Papuans to raise their flag, the Morning Star, or to sing their national anthem, “O My Land, Papua”. Both are counted as “rebellion” under Indonesian law and are punishable by up to 20 years in prison (6). And under a new decree I have just issued (without any consultation with the Papuan people, of course), I’ve also banned displaying the flag or any other “separatist symbols” such as the Mambruk bird on a bag or T shirt. (7) Last July, our Indonesian Police also investigated allegations that some Papuan teenagers had been seen performing a separatist dance.

3) Next you must BAN all “regional/Scottish” political parties, especially the Scottish National Party. This means that, irrespective of what may be the democratic will of the Scottish people, the only choice Scots will have when they go to vote will be parties which totally support British territorial integrity! You may also consider assassinating their leaders. At the very least, imprison them for as long as possible.

As your Minister said, Indonesia’s experience in West Papua can act as a model to others: Under Indonesian law (8), we have made it impossible for the Papuans to form a “Free West Papua Party” by requiring that all political parties are represented in at least 50% of all the Indonesian provinces. So when West Papuans go to vote they can choose between my Party, The Democratic Party (Indonesian nationalist), or the Party of the Functional Groups [Golkar] (Indonesian nationalist), or the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (Indonesian nationalist), or the United Development Party (Indonesian nationalist), or the Prosperous Justice Party (Indonesian nationalist), or the National Awakening Party (Indonesian nationalist), or the National Mandate Party (Indonesian nationalist) or finally the Crescent Star Party (Indonesian nationalist). This is the choice we offer Papuan voters under Indonesian democracy.

Our friends in Burma prefer to keep Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, but in 2001 we in Indonesia decided it was better to assassinate the West Papuan independence leader, Theys Eluay (9). Our Special Forces strangled him to death because he was becoming much too popular amongst his own people and he was making West Papua known in the rest of the world. Then in 2002 we arrested another West Papuan independence leader, Benny Wenda. First we tried to bribe him into working for us but when he refused we tried to kill him too. And of course every time a Papuan raises the Morning Star flag, we put them in prison too.

4) Next you must BAN all Scottish separatists from standing in elections or from working in the Civil Service. Simply BAN everyone in Scotland from holding public office if they refuse to sign an oath to “to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom”. And you must also make it a legal requirement of the Scottish Parliament “to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom”. Then if a Member of the Scottish Parliament or a Scottish Civil Servant says anything about wanting independence for Scotland you can dismiss them from their post immediately. You’ll find it’s a very effective way to keep people silent.

As your Minister said, Indonesia’s experience in West Papua can act as a model to others: Under Indonesian Law, all West Papuans who want to stand for election or become a Civil Servant must make an oath “to maintain the unity and integrity” of Indonesia (10). And in our Special Autonomy Law for West Papua we’ve made it law that the Local Papuan Parliament is expressly required “to maintain the integrity of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia”. In 2005, when a Papuan Civil Servant called Filep Karma, raised the Morning Star flag, we naturally dismissed him from his job … and also put him in prison for 15 years. We find this approach works very well for us in West Papua. We can tell the world that the Governor of Papua and the members of the Local Parliament are the “elected representatives of the Papuan people”, but we Indonesians know that these people will almost always stay silent about human rights abuses and Papuan demands for an independence referendum … or else we will fire them.

5) And finally, hold a sham independence referendum. If you are worried that if you give them a free and democratic vote the Scottish people might make the wrong choice, i.e. independence for Scotland, simply make sure that whatever they actually want, you will get a 100% vote in favour of maintaining the United Kingdom! ‘One person – one vote’ is of course out of the question. You must order the British military to hand-pick a thousand or so “Scottish representatives”, then put a gun to their heads and order them to vote for the United Kingdom. You can call it “the Act of Free Choice”.

As your Minister said, Indonesia’s experience in West Papua can act as a model to others: Very inconveniently, we were required under international law to allow the West Papuans to exercise their right to self-determination, but my old mentor General Suharto knew that if we allowed them ‘one person – one vote’ they would undoubtedly make the wrong choice; independence for West Papua. So our Indonesian military simply rounded up 1,026 Papuan elders, locked them inside our military camps, put a gun to their heads and ordered them to vote for Indonesia. (11) This part of our “Indonesian model” was entirely successful. 100% of the “Papuan representatives” voted in favour of Indonesia.

We called it “the Act of Free Choice”.”

------------------------------------------------

Of course, when Gordon Brown speaks of doing “whatever is necessary” to maintain the United Kingdom he doesn’t have assassinating Scottish independence leaders, banning Scottish flags or holding sham referendums in mind. Despite praising it as “a model for others”, the UK will not be following Indonesia’s West Papua model. This imagined advice from Yudhoyono to Brown would be laughable if it wasn’t also so seriously true about how Indonesia is treating the West Papua people.

So this question must be put clearly and strongly to Gordon Brown: If this Indonesian model is so obviously unacceptable as a way to counter Scots who want independence from the UK, why do UK Ministers keep saying it is acceptable, sometimes even praiseworthy, as the way to counter West Papuans who want independence from Indonesia?

Don’t West Papuans deserve exactly the same democratic rights & freedoms as the Scots, the English, the Irish and the Welsh? At their meeting in London next month, we hope Gordon Brown will tell President Yudhoyono that they do.

NOTES:

(1) The Daily Telegraph: “Gordon Brown won't let Union split” 10 May 2008 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/1944747/Gordon-Brown-won't-let-England-and-Scotland-split.html

(2) The Australian: “UN verdict on East Timor” 19 January 2006 http://www.etan.org/et2006/january/14/19truth.htm

(3) Speech by UK Foreign Office Minister, Meg Munn MP, at a Wilton Park Conference “Indonesia: Political and Economic Prospects” 3 March 2008 http://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/documents/Meg%20Munn%20Speech%20901.pdf

(4) Cenderwasih Pos, 7 July 2007: Statement by indicted war criminal and Indonesian military (TNI) commander in the West Papuan capital Jayapura:

"… it is the duty of the TNI [the Indonesian military]to crush any struggle or activity undertaken by any group in the community which tends towards separatism"

"What is absolutely certain is that anyone who tends towards separatism will be crushed by TNI".

“In the interests of the NKRI (Republic of Indonesia), we are not afraid of human rights. We are quite prepared to imprison anyone, or dismiss them from their posts, whenever such [an action] is in the interests of the NKRI".

(5) See, for example, report on TORTURE by Dr Manfred Nowak, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture, 7 March 2008 : “…in Papua .. [Indonesian] mobile paramilitary police units have routinely been engaging in largely indiscriminate village ‘sweeping’ operations in search of alleged independence activists and their supporters, or raids on university boarding houses, using excessive force”.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/7session/A.HRC.7.3.A...

(6) Two prominent examples of West Papuans jailed for peacefully raising the Morning Star flag are Filep Karma & Yusak Pakage, who are currently serving 15 & 10 year prison sentences, respectively. Amnesty International has recognised Filep & Yusak as Prisoners of Conscience and is calling for their immediate and unconditional release. See: http://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions_details.asp?ActionID=42

(6) Indonesian Government Regulation Number 77 of 2007 (PP 77/2007) on “Local Symbols” was issued by President Yudhoyono in December 2007. Article 6.4 states: “The design of a local symbol and flag must not have main similarities to the design, logo and flag of any illegal organization or separatist organization/ group/ institution/ movement in the Unitary Republic of Indonesia.”

(8) Indonesian Law No. 31 of 2002 requires that political parties must have regional party boards in at least 50% of the total Indonesian provinces, and in 50 % of the total districts/municipalities in each province concerned, and in 25 % of the total sub-districts in each district/municipalities concerned. http://www.kbri-bangkok.com/about_indonesia/province_papua/province_papu...

(9) The Age: “Kopassus guilty of Eluay murder” 22 April 2003 http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/21/1050777211770.html

(10) Article 2 of the Official Pledge for Indonesian Civil Servants and military personnel http://jdihukum.banten.go.id/dokumen/UU%2048%20NO%209.pdf

(11) “[In the Act of Free Choice a] 1,000 handpicked representatives … were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia”. (Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons, House of Lords, 13 December 2004.)

Human Rights in West Papua

JamieSW — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:08:08 +0000

Editor's note: the following two speeches were given in a House of Lords debate on the human rights situation in West Papua, on 26 February 2008. The full debate can be read here.

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise an issue that is of such life and death significance to the suffering people of West Papua.

When I go round to our local shops, I almost invariably carry over my shoulder a handmade bag. On this bag is a star against a red background with some blue and white stripes. If I shopped in West Papua with that bag, I would immediately be labelled a separatist and treated with brutality, as a woman was recently who was found making such a bag. Similarly, on 1 December last year, seven West Papuans were arrested for raising this morning star flag in the Catholic Church compound at Kwamki Baru village. Again, when the editor of a West Papuan newspaper was asked what would happen to him if he called for independence, he said quite simply, "Go to jail. Go to jail". Perhaps this total lack of freedom—the freedom of the press and the freedom to form political parties—does indeed fall into the category of what the Minister said on 13 November last year were abuses,

"of a relatively small kind",—[Official Report, 13/11/07; col. 346.]

even though we regard such freedoms as fundamental to the life of this country.

I wonder about torture. Two hundred and forty two cases of torture have been recorded in the past nine years in West Papua. All are well documented and set out in the recent report of Franciscans International. As that report put it:

"Torture is regarded by Indonesian security services as one of the most effective methods to obtain forced confessions and instil a climate of fear and is conducted repeatedly and systematically. Torture in Papua is also used strategically as a means to control the whole community".

If this is still regarded as abuse "of a relatively small kind", will the Minister say how many more cases of torture have to be recorded before it is admitted that there are abuses of a very grave kind indeed—abuses that the Government need to address with great seriousness and urgency?

This systematic brutality is of course all in support of the 1969 "act of no choice". On 14 January this year, the Minister in the other place wrote to a Member describing the act in these words:

"A group of 1,000 Papuan representatives, who were given the responsibility to make the choice on behalf of the Papuan people, voted to remain part of Indonesia".

The bland disingenuousness of that statement is almost unbelievable. Let us remind ourselves of the facts. Suharto sent this clear order to his military forces in West Papua: "See that the" act "on West Irian's"—that is Papua's—

"future status will yield a clear pronouncement in favour of Indonesia".

The forces were duly obedient. As Brigadier-General Ali Murtopo put it to those selected to take part in the so-called "act of free choice" on August 1969:

"This is what will happen to anyone who votes against Indonesia. Their accursed tongues will be torn out. Their full mouths will be wrenched open. Upon them will fall the vengeance of the Indonesia people. I myself will shoot them on the spot".

So it was that the then Minister in this House, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, referring to this on 13 December 2004, said that,

"1,000 handpicked representatives ... were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia".—[Official Report, 13/12/04; col. 1084.]

Later, the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, described the 1969 process as "extremely flawed". Will the Minister therefore say, in the light of the recent letter from the Minister in the other place, whether the Government are now back-tracking from the truth which they previously admitted? The acknowledgement of the truth of the 1969 travesty by the British Government has been one of the few crumbs of comfort offered to the suffering West Papuan people in recent years. Is even that crumb of truth now to be snatched away?

If all this is not serious enough, I have yet to come to the most devastating fact of all. In 1971, there were 887,000 Papuan people and 36,000 Asian Indonesians in West Papua, so even after eight years of Indonesian control, Papuans comprised 96 per cent of the population. On the basis of the latest figures, it is estimated that in 2005 Papuans comprised 59 per cent of the population and others 41 per cent. On present trends, by 2030 Papuans will comprise only 15.6 per cent and non-Papuans 84.8 per cent. These figures speak for themselves. Papuans are becoming a minority in their own country. Juan Mendes, UN Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, described West Papua as being among those countries whose populations were "at risk of extinction".

The most decisive statement to date on the subject of genocide in West Papua has come from the Allard K Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School, which published a paper in 2005 entitled Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control. It said:

"Although no single act or set of acts can be said to have constituted genocide, per se, and although the required intent cannot be as readily inferred as it was in the cases of the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide, there can be little doubt that the Indonesian government has engaged in a systematic pattern of acts that has resulted in harm to—and indeed the destruction of—a substantial part of the indigenous population of West Papua. The inevitability of this result was readily obvious, and the government has taken no active measures to contravene it. According to current understanding of the Genocide Convention, including its interpretation in the jurisprudence of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals, such a pattern of actions and inactions—of acts and omissions—supports the conclusion that the Indonesian government has acted with the necessary intent to find that it has perpetrated genocide against the people of West Papua".

West Papua is a small country a long way away. Indonesia is a big player with which we have major trade deals. West Papua is rich in natural resources, and major international companies such as BP, Rio Tinto and BAE Systems, among others, are active in utilising them.

There are those who think that if only they stall long enough the problem will go away, solved by demography if nothing else. But I should like to assure the Government and reassure the West Papuan people that this issue will not be dropped and already momentum is gathering round the world. Recently two US congressmen, Donald Payne and Eni Faleomavaega, have taken up the issue with the UN Secretary-General. They were particularly concerned with the way that human rights defenders were harassed after the visit of Mrs Jilani, the UN special envoy, last year.

Mrs Jilani concluded that a climate of fear prevails in West Papua, which has been borne out by the way in which those who sought to contact her have been singled out for special intimidation. The human rights abuses in West Papua are very grave and I ask the Government to pursue that issue with very great seriousness, conviction and urgency. In particular, human rights defenders need special protection, so I would ask the Minister to work for an international presence in West Papua to ensure that those who are raising human rights issues can do so without the present fear of intimidation, torture and death.
----

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the House is indebted, not for the first time, to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for calling attention to this tragic situation. This is not the first occasion on which we have discussed the appalling events in West Papua. Sadly, our debates have failed to lead to any improvement for the people of West Papua, or, apparently, to impress on our Government the magnitude of the suffering. The last occasion on which we spared a thought for this situation was on 13 November 2007, when the noble and right reverend Lord asked a Starred Question. My noble friend Lord Malloch-Brown replied with an undisguised candour that the Government do not propose to raise the matter in the Security Council and do not support Papuan independence.

We have not been privy to the Government's reasoning which led to that conclusion, but if there are two propositions which defy reputation they are, first, that if they were permitted to express a view, the overwhelming majority of the population would choose independence. As the noble and right reverend Lord has said, the so-called act of free choice was a blatantly transparent charade. We know that the American ambassador reported at that time that 85 to 90 per cent of the population were in sympathy with the Free Papua Movement. Secondly, West Papua passes all the tests in international law for a right to the free choice of its own destiny. I shall not weary your Lordships by repeating what I said on that issue on 8 January 2007.

However, the subject of today's debate is not about the right of self-determination, but about the consequences of leaving West Papuans to the mercy of a brutal, alien regime. During our exchanges on 13 November, my noble friend stated as the Government's view that, while they are concerned by continuing human rights abuses in Papua, they believe that they are,

"of a relatively small kind".—[Official Report, 13/11/07; col. 346.]

That is hardly the impression which emerges from what we have just heard from the noble and right reverend Lord.

It is hardly the impression that emerges from the 2007 annual report of Amnesty International, which records that the torture and ill treatment of detainees is widespread, and we recall of course that many detainees are imprisoned for peaceful protests. The report continues that prison conditions fall short of international standards. It speaks of extra-judicial executions and records that in 2007, there were at least six occasions when security forces opened fire on civilians. It tells us that the perpetrators appear to enjoy immunity.

Nor did my noble friend's characterisation of the human rights infringements accord with the recent Human Rights Watch country summary on Indonesia, which said that, in West Papua, peaceful political activists continue to be classified as "separatists", which is a criminal offence. The report speaks of village "sweeping operations" carried out with great brutality by the army, the police and paramilitary units. It mentioned too that the regional military commander appointed in 2007, Colonel Siagian, was indicted by the United Nations for crimes against humanity in East Timor.

The Government's view was not supported by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in Geneva last August, which commented that at last Indonesia had complied with its reporting obligations under the convention. The report—six years overdue—refrained from commenting that this road-to-Damascus conversion may be connected with Indonesia's ambition to be re-elected to the United Nations Human Rights Committee. The report adds that Indonesia has still not implemented the convention in its domestic legislation.

Nor is the Government's assessment in accordance with the report by Franciscans International, which notes that,

"in the Province of West Papua, the steadfast pattern of human rights violations, including torture, repression of the freedom of expression, unfair trials, arbitrary detention and the denial of social, economic and cultural rights, have created a culture of fear and have resulted in a stagnated development, which has made Papua the least developed province of Indonesia".

I leave it to other noble Lord to comments on the rape of Papua's mineral wealth, which is now being shared between the Indonesian Government and foreign investors, but not by the Papuan people.

In at least one respect, I sympathise with the Government's problem. It is not easy in the present state of international law, and in the absence of charter reform, to suggest a simple remedy. Of course, no one would recommend an invasion as anything but a final resort when diplomatic approaches, appeals from human rights organisations and sanctions have failed to provide a solution. But a reference to the Security Council by a Government who carry the international respect of the United Kingdom could be a beginning and could reassure the West Papuan people that someone cares.

I suspect that history will not understand how human suffering on such a scale continued year after year while the world looked on complacently and Governments in more fortunate countries pronounced the atrocities as "of a relatively small kind". What a pity that we cannot ask the people of West Papua whether they agree.

Suharto - Covering Up Western Complicity

JamieSW — Tue, 12 Feb 2008 22:05:42 +0000

The death of the former Indonesian dictator, Suharto, on January 27 could have unleashed a flood of revelations detailing British and American support for one of the 20th century’s worst mass murderers. Instead, the media continued the cover up that has so far lasted more than forty years.

The 1965-6 massacres that accompanied Suharto’s rise to power claimed the lives of between 500,000 and 1 million people, mostly landless peasants. A 1977 Amnesty International report cited a tally of “many more than one million” deaths. (http://www.fair.org/articles/suharto-itt.html) In the words of a leaked CIA report at the time, the massacre was “one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century”. (Declassified US CIA Directorate of Intelligence research study, ‘Indonesia – 1965: The Coup That Backfired,’ 1968; http://newsc.blogspot.com/)

Infamously, while assuring readers of US involvement, leading New York Times commentator James Reston described these events as “a gleam of light in Asia”. (http://www.fair.org/extra/9603/reston.html) Max Frankel, then the New York Times’ Washington correspondent, wrote an article titled, “US Is Heartened by Red Setback in Indonesia Coup.” He commented:

“The Johnson administration believes that a dramatic new opportunity has developed both for anti-Communist Indonesians and for United States policies. Officials… believe the army will cripple and perhaps destroy the Communists as a significant political force.”
(http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/indonesia-nyt.html)

The United States had been heavily involved, not just in bringing Suharto to power, but in arming, equipping and training his army. In May 1990, Kathy Kadane of the Washington-based States News Service reported admissions of US government officials that the US embassy in Jakarta had drawn up lists of 5,000 suspected Communist leaders. These “zap lists” were given to the Indonesian military who used them to track down and kill party members. One former embassy official told Kadane: “I probably have a lot of blood on my hands, but that’s not all bad.” (http://www.fair.org/extra/best-of-extra/indonesia-nyt.html)

Ralph McGehee, a senior CIA operations officer in the 1960s, described the terror of Suharto’s takeover as “the model operation” for the US-backed coup that later destroyed Chile’s Salvador Allende. McGehee indicated the key deception that had sparked Suharto’s massacre:

“The CIA forged a document purporting to reveal a leftist plot to murder Chilean military leaders… [just like] what happened in Indonesia in 1965.” (John Pilger, ‘Our model dictator,’ The Guardian, January 28, 2007; http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2247948,00.html)

The British government was secretly involved in the slaughter. Roland Challis, BBC south-east Asia correspondent at the time, later revealed:

“British warships escorted a ship full of Indonesian troops down the Malacca Straits so they could take part in the terrible holocaust… I and other correspondents were unaware of this at the time… There was a deal, you see. In establishing the Suharto regime, the involvement of the IMF and the World Bank was part of it… Suharto would bring them back. That was the deal.” (Ibid)

The “deal” involved opening up what Richard Nixon had called “the richest hoard of natural resources, the greatest prize in south-east Asia”. Suharto transformed Indonesia into an “investors’ paradise”. (http://www.fair.org/extra/9809/suharto.html) Foreign investment was attracted by a law which protected property from nationalisation for 30 years. The new regime also offered to return to their original owners American, British and Dutch firms which had been taken over by Suharto’s predecessor, Sukarno. In November 1967, Nixon’s “prize” was delivered at a three-day conference in Geneva. The Freeport company got West Papua‘s copper. A US/European consortium got much of the nickel. The Alcoa company got Indonesia’s bauxite. America, Japanese and French companies got the tropical forests of Sumatra.

The West, unsurprisingly, was delighted to do business with Indonesia’s new “moderate” leader, who was “at heart benign,” the Economist declared.
(http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Chomsky/ChomOdon_SEAsia.html)

Blood Red – Green Light

The United States and Britain were also key allies supporting Suharto’s December 1975 invasion of East Timor. The day before the attack, while visiting the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, secretary of state Henry Kissinger and president Gerald Ford gave Suharto the green light to invade.

In media coverage immediately following Ford’s death in December 2006, we found a single sentence in the entire UK press describing his complicity in the East Timor genocide. Christopher Hitchens wrote in the Mirror:

“It was Kissinger and Ford who gave permission to the Indonesian generals for their illegal annexation of East Timor, which turned into a genocide.” (Hitchens, ‘The accidental president,’ Mirror, December 28, 2006)

Philip Liechty, CIA desk officer in Jakarta at the time of the invasion, gave an idea of the operative ethics:

“We sent the Indonesian generals everything that you need to fight a major war against somebody who doesn’t have any guns. We sent them rifles, ammunition, mortars, grenades, food, helicopters. You name it; they got it. And they got it direct… No one cared. No one gave a damn. It is something that I will be forever ashamed of. The only justification I ever heard for what we were doing was there was concern that East Timor was on the verge of being accepted as a new member of the United Nations and there was a chance that the country was going to be either leftist or neutralist and not likely to vote [with the United States] at the UN.” (Quoted, John Pilger, Hidden Agendas, Vintage, 1998, pp.285-6. See our media alert for more detail: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/02/020601_east_timor.html)

The US supplied 90% of the weapons. Britain supplied armoured cars and advanced fighter-bombers used against East Timorese targets. The result was the death of 200,000 people out of a total of 700,000 – one of the worst genocides in history by proportion of population killed.

A month after Indonesia invaded, as tens of thousands of people were being massacred, a US State Department official told a major Australian newspaper that “in terms of the bilateral relations between the US and Indonesia, we are more or less condoning the incursion into East Timor… The United States wants to keep its relations with Indonesia close and friendly. We regard Indonesia as a friendly, non-aligned nation – a nation we do a lot of business with”. (The Australian, January 22, 1976; http://www.fair.org/activism/east-timor-context.html)

In December 1975, the British ambassador in Jakarta informed the Foreign Office: “it is in Britain’s interest that Indonesia should absorb the territory as soon and as unobtrusively as possible, and that if it should come to the crunch and there is a row in the United Nations, we should keep our heads down and avoid taking sides against the Indonesian government”. (Quoted, Mark Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power, Zed Books, 1996, pp.219-220)

US reporter Allan Nairn happened to witness, and narrowly survived, one massacre of unarmed protestors in the East Timor capital, Dili, in November 1991:

“The soldiers marched straight up to us [Western journalists]. They never broke their stride. We were enveloped by the troops, and when they got a few yards past us, within a dozen yards of the Timorese, they raised their rifles to their shoulders all at once, and they opened fire. The Timorese, in an instant, were down, just torn apart by the bullets. The street was covered with bodies covered with blood. And the soldiers just kept on coming. They poured in, one rank after another. They leaped over the bodies of those who were down. They were aiming and shooting people in the back. I could see their limbs being torn, their bodies exploding. There was blood spurting out into the air. The pop of the bullets, everywhere. And it was very organized, very systematic. The soldiers did not stop. They just kept on shooting until no one was left standing.“ (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/28/massacre_the_story_of_east_timor)

Burying The Dead – British Media Performance

How much of this information has been communicated by the mainstream media since Suharto’s death?

Jonathan Head wrote on the BBC website of Suharto:

“His accession to power coincided with the escalation of the Vietnam War, when the United States was desperate for reliable allies in the region and willing to turn a blind eye to his human rights record.” (Head, ‘The lasting legacy of Suharto,’ BBC online, January 27, 2008; http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7183191.stm)

As we have seen, this was about far more than just turning a “blind eye”. In fact, the United States played a key role in bringing Suharto to power, and in providing weapons for his genocidal army. The M-16 guns Suharto’s troops used were American – the Hawk jets that bombed East Timor were British. But East Timor was not so much as mentioned in Head’s high-profile BBC report. When challenged by a reader, Head replied:

“I think it is entirely inappropriate to rank Suharto alongside Sadaam [sic] Hussein. There was never anything like the pervasive terror here that existed in Iraq. I in no way wish to diminish the enormous suffering of many Indonesians under his rule.” (Email forwarded to Media Lens, January 28, 2008)

In 1998, Jim Naureckas of FAIR (www.fair.org) responded to the argument that Suharto could not be compared to Saddam Hussein:

“‘Suharto is no Saddam,’ the New York Times’ ‘Week in Review’ assured us on March 8. How so? The Indonesian dictator’s rule is no less autocratic than Saddam Hussein’s. Like Hussein, Suharto has attempted to annex a smaller neighbor – in fact, his ongoing occupation of East Timor has been far bloodier than Hussein’s assault on Kuwait. While Hussein’s rule has been brutally repressive, Suharto is directly responsible for one of the greatest acts of mass murder in post-World War II history: the genocide that accompanied his rise to power in 1965.” (http://www.fair.org/articles/suharto-itt.html)

BBC News online invited readers to ‘Have Your Say’:

“Mr Suharto was accused of embezzling $600m (£303m) of state funds during his 32 years of power, but the criminal charges were dropped in 2006 on account of his ill health. A civil case brought by state prosecutors seeking $1.5bn in damages and funds allegedly stolen from the state was never settled.

“What are your memories of the former strongman? What is his legacy? Should the charges against him have been dropped” (http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=4166&edition=2&ttl=2…)

The charges of mass murder apparently do not exist.

A Daily Telegraph news report accepted that Suharto was “one of the 20th century’s biggest killers and greatest thieves… It began with the massacre of at least 500,000 communists in 1965. Two hundred thousand were killed when he annexed the former Portuguese colony of East Timor in 1975.” (Marianne Kearney and Thomas Bell, ‘Suharto death revives memories of the million killed under his rule,’ Daily Telegraph, January 28, 2008)

But what of US-UK support for his killing, motivated by corporate greed for Indonesia’s natural resources?

“His friends among western governments, attracted by his strong anti-communism, helped protect him in office.”

As ever, media reporting promotes the alleged concern to save the world from the former bete noire, “communism” (a role currently being played by al Qaeda) – just as a sincere concern to save the world from Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction was the motive for invading Iraq, not control of oil.

A single letter in the Guardian made the point that is unthinkable for mainstream journalists:

“The collusion of the British with Suharto’s murderous regime is not some throwback to cold-war realpolitik, but an integral and ongoing dimension of a foreign policy in thrall to the avaricious interests of big business. In 1967, following Suharto’s western-backed coup, oil companies and multinational corporations divided up Indonesia’s vast natural resources. Now, 40 years later, they are doing the same in Iraq, with the British government trying to push through an oil law which, if passed, would allow Shell, BP and Exxon to take control of most of Iraq’s oil reserves, depriving ordinary Iraqis of billions of dollars. Plus ca change.” (Stefan Simanowitz, Letters page, The Guardian, January 29, 2008)

A Daily Telegraph obituary observed:

“Suharto, however, had made a serious mistake in 1975 when he took advantage of civil war in East Timor to overthrow the forces of the dominant Fretelin guerrilla movement. In the face of widespread international disapproval, he proceeded to annex the country to Indonesia.” (‘Obituary of General Suharto,’ Daily Telegraph, January 28, 2008)

In fact, there was no “widespread international disapproval” – while the Timorese buried their dead, Western politicians and journalists buried the story. In 1979, when Indonesia’s killings were reaching genocidal levels, there was not a single mainstream press article on the crisis in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Dissident journalist Amy Goodman reported the details:

“ABC, NBC and CBS ‘Evening News’ never mentioned the words East Timor and neither did ‘Nightline’ or ‘MacNeil Lehrer’ between 1975, the day of the invasion, except for one comment by Walter Cronkite the day after, saying Indonesia had invaded East Timor – it was a 40 second report – until November 12, 1991.” (Amy Goodman, ‘Exception to the Rulers, Part II,’ Z Magazine, December 1997)

In its January 28 obituary, the Telegraph also referred to “Western revulsion” at the 1965-6 massacres. Presumably they had in mind the exultation and joy expressed on both sides of the Atlantic. (‘Obituary of General Suharto President of Indonesia,’ Daily Telegraph, January 28, 2008)

The Independent chose to focus on lesser crimes – how Suharto had used his power to enrich himself and his family. The dictator had clung on too long, the paper lamented:

“Had Suharto stepped down earlier, Indonesia might have agreed that his achievement of three decades of economic growth out-weighed his failings.” (‘Suharto: Former dictator of Indonesia,’ The Independent, January 28, 2008)

As Allan Nairn notes, the idea that Suharto’s record can be defended on grounds of increased prosperity – he may have presided over vast massacres but he also presided over rapid economic growth – is “Pravda thinking”. The argument being, after all, “the same one once used to justify Stalin”. (http://newsc.blogspot.com/)

What of US-UK complicity in Suharto’s “failings”? The Independent noted that his coup “was particularly welcome to the United States, deeply embroiled in nearby Vietnam and very willing to back anti-Communist military dictatorships. American aid was offered and accepted…”

Again, we are to understand that the goal was to stave off ‘the Commies’. Nothing more was said about US-UK involvement in the killings in Indonesia or East Timor.

To its credit, the Guardian shamed the Independent’s performance simply by publishing John Pilger’s honest analysis of US-UK complicity in Suharto’s crimes: ‘Our model dictator – The death of Suharto is a reminder of the west’s ignoble role in propping up a murderous regime.’ (January 28, 2007; http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2247948,00.html)

The Financial Times found that Suharto’s “achievements” were punctuated by “severe shortcomings”. (John Aglionby and Shawn Donnan, ‘Corrupt autocrat who fostered stability,’ Financial Times, January 28, 2008)

It is interesting to consider the language used. In 1998, the US media analyst Edward Herman compared press descriptions of the Suharto and Pol Pot regimes:

“When Pol Pot died in April 1998, the media were unstinting in condemnation, calling him ‘wicked,’ ‘loathsome,’ and ‘monumentally evil’ (Chicago Tribune, 4/18/98), a ‘lethal mass killer’ and ‘war criminal’ (L.A. Times, 4/17/98), ‘blood-soaked’ and an ‘egregious mass murderer’ (Washington Post, 4/17/98, 4/18/98). His rule was repeatedly described as a ‘reign of terror’ and he was guilty of ‘genocide.’...”

“Although Suharto’s regime was responsible for a comparable number of deaths in Indonesia, along with more than a quarter of the population of East Timor, the word ‘genocide’ is virtually never used in mainstream accounts of his rule.” (Herman, ‘Good and Bad Genocide,’ FAIR, September/October 1998; http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1433)

The FT identified one of the “severe shortcomings“: “Suharto drew international condemnation after he ordered the 1975 invasion of East Timor”. In fact, the “international condemnation” was restricted to a small, US-based student protest, which grew over three decades to become a global mass movement. As we have seen, Western governments and media did not give a damn.

A single, cryptic comment on US-UK involvement followed: “Suharto sought a more intimate relationship with the US, which remained a strong ally.”

Pilger’s article aside, it would be impossible to guess from this media performance the central role US-UK political and military support played in the rise and massacres of president Suharto.

In December 2006, we reviewed, with near-identical results, media coverage of the death of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. A Guardian obituary commented on Pincohet‘s overthrow of Allende:

“The coup, in which CIA destabilisation played a part…” (Malcolm Coad, ‘Augusto Pinochet,‘ The Guardian, December 11, 2006; www.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1968953,00.html)

And that, as we noted at the time, was that! No more information was provided. (See: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/061219_born_in_usa.php)

When former US president Ronald Reagan died in 2004, close to nothing was said about his crimes in Central America. (See: www.medialens.org/alerts/04/040610_Reagan_Visions_1.HTM and www.medialens.org/alerts/04/040615_Reagan_Visions_2.HTM)

When Bill Clinton’s presidency has been reviewed, his responsibility for suffering and death has been a non-issue. (See: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/04/040706_Covering_Mr_President.HTM)

And, as discussed, Gerald Ford’s complicity in Suharto’s crimes was also blanked.

It is crucial that the truth of US-UK violence not be admitted or seriously explored. Within that silence the myth of benevolence can be cultivated – and this is the key illusion allowing the West to attack, invade and kill with impunity, freed from decisive public opposition. We always ’had to’. We always ’meant well’. We always ‘have hopes for a brighter future’.

SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to the BBC’s Jonathan Head
Email: jonathan.head@bbc.co.uk

Write to Marianne Kearney at the Daily Telegraph
Email: marianne.kearney@telegraph.co.uk

Write to John Aglionby at the Financial Times
Email: john.aglionby@ft.com

Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org

Media Lens has been awarded the Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award 2007: http://www.gandhifoundation.org/peaceaward.html

The Media Lens book ‘Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media’ by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London ) was published in 2006. John Pilger described it as “The most important book about journalism I can remember.”

For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

Please consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate

Please visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

Our model dictator

JamieSW — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 09:43:05 +0000

In my film Death of a Nation, there is a sequence filmed on board an Australian aircraft flying over the island of Timor. A party is in progress, and two men in suits are toasting each other in champagne. "This is an historically unique moment," says one of them, "that is truly uniquely historical."

This was Gareth Evans, Australia's then foreign minister. The other man was Ali Alatas, the principal mouthpiece of the Indonesian dictator General Suharto, who died yesterday. The year was 1989, and the two were making a grotesquely symbolic flight to celebrate the signing of a treaty that would allow Australia and the international oil and gas companies to exploit the seabed off East Timor, then illegally and viciously occupied by Suharto. The prize, according to Evans, was "zillions of dollars".

Beneath them lay a land of crosses: great black crosses etched against the sky, crosses on peaks, crosses in tiers on the hillsides. Filming clandestinely in East Timor, I would walk into the scrub, and there were the crosses. They littered the earth and crowded the eye. In 1993, the foreign affairs committee of Australia's parliament reported that "at least 200,000" had died under Indonesia's occupation: almost a third of the population. Yet East Timor's horror, foretold and nurtured by the US, Britain and Australia, was a sequel. "No single American action in the period after 1945," wrote the historian Gabriel Kolko, "was as bloodthirsty as its role in Indonesia, for it tried to initiate the massacre." He was referring to Suharto's seizure of power in 1965-6, which caused the violent deaths of up to a million people.

To understand the significance of Suharto is to look beneath the surface of the current world order: the so-called global economy and the ruthless cynicism of those who run it. Suharto was our model mass murderer - "our" is used here advisedly. "One of our very best and most valuable friends," Thatcher called him. For three decades the south-east Asian department of the Foreign Office worked tirelessly to minimise the crimes of Suharto's gestapo, known as Kopassus, who gunned down people with British-supplied Heckler & Koch machine guns from British-supplied Tactica "riot control" vehicles.

A Foreign Office speciality was smearing witnesses to the bombing of East Timorese villages by British-supplied Hawk aircraft - until Robin Cook was forced to admit it was true. Almost a billion pounds in export credit guarantees financed the sale of the Hawks, paid for by the British taxpayer while the arms industry reaped the profit.

Only the Australians were more obsequious. "We know your people love you," the prime minister Bob Hawke told the dictator to his face. His successor, Paul Keating, regarded the tyrant as a father figure. Paul Kelly, a prominent Murdoch retainer, led a group of major newspaper editors to Jakarta, to fawn before the mass murderer even though they all knew his grisly record.

Here lies a clue as to why Suharto, unlike Saddam Hussein, died not on the gallows but surrounded by the finest medical team his secret billions could buy. Ralph McGehee, a senior CIA operations officer in the 1960s, describes the terror of Suharto's takeover in 1965-6 as "the model operation" for the US-backed coup that got rid of Salvador Allende in Chile seven years later. "The CIA forged a document purporting to reveal a leftist plot to murder Chilean military leaders," he wrote, "[just like] what happened in Indonesia in 1965." The US embassy in Jakarta supplied Suharto with a "zap list" of Indonesian Communist party members and crossed off the names when they were killed or captured. Roland Challis, BBC south-east Asia correspondent at the time, told me how the British government was secretly involved in this slaughter. "British warships escorted a ship full of Indonesian troops down the Malacca Straits so they could take part in the terrible holocaust," he said. "I and other correspondents were unaware of this at the time ... There was a deal, you see."

The deal was that Indonesia under Suharto would offer up what Richard Nixon had called "the richest hoard of natural resources, the greatest prize in south-east Asia". In November 1967 the greatest prize was handed out at a remarkable three-day conference sponsored by the Time-Life Corporation in Geneva. Led by David Rockefeller, all the corporate giants were represented: the major oil companies and banks, General Motors, Imperial Chemical Industries, British American Tobacco, Siemens, US Steel and many others. Across the table sat Suharto's US-trained economists who agreed to the corporate takeover of their country, sector by sector. The Freeport company got a mountain of copper in West Papua. A US/European consortium got the nickel. The giant Alcoa company got the biggest slice of Indonesia's bauxite. America, Japanese and French companies got the tropical forests of Sumatra. When the plunder was complete, President Lyndon Johnson sent his congratulations on "a magnificent story of opportunity seen and promise awakened". Thirty years later, with the genocide in East Timor also complete, the World Bank described the Suharto dictatorship as a "model pupil".

Shortly before the death of Alan Clark, who under Thatcher was the minister responsible for supplying Suharto with most of his weapons, I interviewed him, and asked: "Did it bother you personally that you were causing such mayhem and human suffering?"

"No, not in the slightest," he replied. "It never entered my head."

"I ask the question because I read you are a vegetarian and are seriously concerned with the way animals are killed."

"Yeah?"

"Doesn't that concern extend to humans?"

"Curiously not."

Britain's role in the world

JamieSW — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 22:34:32 +0000

There was an interesting discussion yesterday in the House of Lords about the West Papuan problem, specifically the genocidal Indonesian occupation of West Papua which has thus far enjoyed the full support of the British government. The exchange, between several Lords and Foreign Office Minister Lord Malloch-Brown, reveals a lot about the sincerity of Britain's purported commitment to human rights, democracy and freedom.

Asked by Lord Harries of Pentregarth "[w]hether the United Kingdom has a responsibility to raise the case of West Papua in the United Nations Security Council", Malloch-Brown replied,

"My Lords, we do not plan to raise Papua in the United Nations Security Council. We respect Indonesia’s territorial integrity and do not support Papuan independence. We believe that full implementation of existing special autonomy legislation is the best way to proceed towards a sustainable resolution to the internal differences and the long-term stability of Papua. The best way to resolve the complex issues in Papua is through promoting peaceful dialogue between Papuan groups and the Indonesian Government."

The exchange continued:

"Lord Harries of Pentregarth : My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that the British Government’s attitude in 1968-69, as now revealed under the 30-year rule through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office telegrams, could only be described as brutal realism? Commercial links with Indonesia were allowed to stifle totally the legitimate claims of the indigenous West Papuan people to independence. We therefore have a particular responsibility to let the voice of these people, who are suffering massive human rights abuses, at least be heard in the councils of the UN.

Lord Malloch-Brown : My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the time of the so-called Act of Free Choice when 1,000 pre-designated or selected Papuan representatives made a decision on behalf of the Papuan people. There has subsequently been much dispute whether they made that decision objectively and freely of their own will. Nevertheless, it was endorsed by the United Nations at the time and since then there has been no international doubt that Papua is part of Indonesia.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, there is no legal or procedural impediment to raising the question either at the General Assembly or in the Security Council under Article 35 of the charter. Is it the Government’s position that genocide should continue while the international community looks on? If so, what has become of the ethical foreign policy?

Lord Malloch-Brown : My Lords, the noble and learned Lord raises two separate points. First, while we are concerned by continuing human rights abuses in Papua—we have highlighted them in this year’s Foreign Office and government human rights report and raised them through our embassy in Jakarta—we nevertheless believe that they are of a relatively small kind and do not in any way constitute the level of gravity that has just been implied. Secondly, because we do not accept that Papua should be independent, we would not consider it appropriate to raise the issue in the Security Council or General Assembly.

Lord Avebury : My Lords, does the Minister agree that the so-called Act of Free Choice was nothing of the kind? If that is so, is it not at least worth asking the Indonesians to consider the similar case of Aceh, where there has been a free election for an autonomous government of the territory? Might that not be the best way forward, rather than total independence?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Aceh offers us hope that Indonesia is now trying to deal with these issues within a framework of autonomy and self-government within that. Indeed, the Act of 2001 offers such arrangements for Papua. We are disappointed that, due to political disputes between the Government and local Papuan groups, the implementation of that special autonomy arrangement has not gone further at this stage.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, sitting here, it is very difficult to discern from the answers that have been given what is the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstands. I look at this as one of the clearest answers by a Minister: that the Government do not accept that Papua has a claim to independence and believe that it is part of Indonesia. The noble Lord will accept that that is an unusually clear statement by a government Minister..." [my emph.]

This is a disgraceful performance. Referring to the 1969 "Act of Free Choice", Malloch-Brown describes how there "has subsequently been much dispute whether they made that decision objectively and freely of their own will". These weasel words are sheer fabrication - whatever "dispute" that has existed has been totally contrived. There was never any doubt about the fraudulence of the "referendum" in 1969 - even the British government recently conceded that in 1969 "a thousand hand-picked Papuans were largely coerced into declaring for Indonesia”. This was hardly a recent revelation - as the Foreign Office noted at the time,

"Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian (West Papua) have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are of an alien (Javanese) race, and that the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made". (PRO: FCO 24/449 (FWD1/4). FCO briefing on West Irian prepared for the UK delegation to the UNGA, 10 September 1969)

George Monbiot describes what happened in blunter terms:

"1,022 men [or a fraction of 1% of West Papua’s population of 800,000] were selected by Indonesian soldiers, taught the words “I want Indonesia”, then lined up at gunpoint. One man who refused to say his lines was shot. Others were threatened with being dropped out of helicopters. This rigorous democratic exercise resulted in a unanimous vote for Indonesian rule".

Certainly, it was a far cry from the act of self-determination involving all adult West Papuan men and women promised in the 1962 'New York Agreement', that 'temporarily' handed control of West Papua to Indonesia. After raping and torturing its way through the West Papuan population, killing an estimated 30,000 people in six years, Indonesia finally got round to organising the farcical "act of self-determination" described above in 1969.

Despite the obviously fraudulent process (one U.S. embassy telegram (.pdf) described it as "unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion preordained"), the international community - including Britain - accepted the Indonesian conquest of West Papua as legitimate. The reasons why were explained accurately in an internal 1968 Foreign Office memo:

"The strength of the Indonesian position lies in the fact that...they must know that, even if there are protests about the way they go through the motions of consultation, no other power is likely to conceive it as being in their interests to intervene...I cannot imagine the US, Japanese, Dutch, or Australian Governments putting at risk their economic and political relations with Indonesia on a matter of principle involving a relatively small number of very primitive people."

Or, as Lord Harries put it last year,

"A number of powerful countries have strong economic ties to Indonesia, not least in the arms trade, and will be only too anxious not to make a fuss about this matter, as they were anxious not to make a fuss about it at the time of the so-called "Act of Free Choice" in 1969. We are, of course, one of those countries."

Since then, an estimated 100,000 West Papuans have been killed in what a Yale Law School study (.pdf) describes as a genocide. The British government has continued to sell arms to Indonesia - over £393 million worth between 1997 and 2005 alone. Noam Chomsky often quotes Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment Program on Law and Democracy and a former official in the Reagan administration, to the effect that there exists a "strong line of continuity" in U.S. foreign policy, specifically that:

"Where democracy appears to fit in well with US security and economic interests, the United States promotes democracy. Where democracy clashes with other significant interests, it is downplayed or even ignored."

The British government's continued support for Indonesian oppression in West Papua demonstrates that the principle is equally applicable over here.

"Indonesia's territorial integrity"...it's just a bloody map

JamieSW — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:22:41 +0000

“The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

- Nazi Propaganda Minister, Josef Goebbels, 1941

For nearly 40 years, a succession of Generals in Jakarta, from Suharto to Yudhoyono, together with their fellow conspirators in London, Washington, Canberra and the Hague, have told a very big lie; that the people of West Papua chose feely to join Indonesia in the 1969 “Act of Free Choice”. And by repeating the lie over and over again they’ve hoped that people would eventually come to believe it.

The truth is Indonesia’s greatest enemy. The Indonesian, British, American, Australian and Dutch governments all know the truth; In 1969 Suharto’s henchmen put their rifles to the heads of 1,026 West Papuan elders and threatened to blow their brains out if they voted for independence. They all know the truth that if the West Papuan people had been given a genuine one person – one vote referendum they would have voted overwhelmingly for independence. And they also all know the truth that the only way Indonesia can hold on to West Papua now is by repressing peaceful Papuan dissenters like Filep Karma & Yusak Pakage, jailed for 15 & 10 years for peacefully raising the West Papuan flag.

Indonesian embassies all over the world are spending millions of rupiahs in a desperate attempt to prevent the truth from coming out. But it’s money down the drain. Indonesia is loosing the battle. However many independence campaigners Indonesia imprisons, tortures, intimidates or kills inside West Papua, all the money in the world can’t stop West Papuans in Britain, the USA, Australia or the Netherlands from simply telling the truth.

Indonesia’s big West Papua lie is now so obviously a lie that it has become too embarrassing for Indonesia’s Western allies to repeat the lie itself. You won’t now hear a British government Minister trying to defend the “Act of Free Choice”. In fact the UK government now calls it “extremely flawed” [1] and has even officially admitted that in 1969 “a thousand hand-picked Papuans were largely coerced into declaring for Indonesia”.[2]

But while the UK and Indonesia’s other Western co-conspirators don’t now tell the big lie themselves, they are nevertheless still trying to protect the lie from the truth’s corrosive power. Now, when anyone (whether an ordinary citizen, Member of Parliament or even David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament [3]) asks the British Foreign Secretary any question about West Papua’s right to self-determination, the Foreign Office sends up a smoke screen to try to protect Indonesia’s big lie. They say the UK “respects Indonesia’s territorial integrity”.

Question: In the 1969 “Act of Free Choice”, were the West Papuan people allowed to exercise their internationally-recognised right to self-determination in accordance with international law?

Answer: The United Kingdom government respects the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia.

Question: The UK has already admitted that the West Papuan people were “coerced” into joining Indonesia in 1969, so isn’t it the logical conclusion that the West Papuans should now be given the chance to vote in a free and fair self-determination referendum?

Answer: The United Kingdom government respects the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia.

Question: Now that Indonesia has signed up to the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, should the West Papuan people be allowed to campaign peacefully for independence, or is it still OK for Indonesia to jail them for 15 years for peacefully raising the West Papuan “Morning Star” flag?

Answer: The United Kingdom government respects the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia.

“Respecting Indonesia’s territorial integrity” is blatantly not an answer to these questions which would stand up in any court of law. The Foreign Office’s answers would be laughable if their consequence wasn’t so serious for the West Papuan people suffering under Indonesian oppression. Very sadly, it’s all too clear that by repeating the “territorial integrity” mantra over and over again the UK and Indonesia’s other Western friends are simply avoiding giving answers in order to protect Indonesia’s big lie … and at the same time, of course, protect British economic interests (BP is collaborating with the Indonesian government on a huge natural gas project in West Papua. Rio Tinto has a share in one of the world’s biggest gold & copper mines in the West Papuan highlands.)

So it’s high time to prick the “territorial integrity” bubble once and for all by exposing what “Indonesia’s territorial integrity” actually means. It’s just a bloody map.

Indonesia claims West Papua because it says that every square mile of the Far East which the Dutch grabbed, Indonesia should now be allowed to grab too. From Sumatra to New Guinea, every island or part of an island which used to be coloured Dutch orange on the old maps, should now, they claim, be coloured Indonesian red. Indonesia’s argument means that one old Dutch Empire should simply be replaced by a new Javanese Empire.

“Indonesia‘s territorial integrity” is just a bloody map. How can a bloody map justify the oppression of a million and a half Melanesians? How can a bloody map justify the Indonesian military imprisoning, torturing, raping, terrorising and murdering West Papuan men, women and children? How can a bloody map justify the use of State violence and terror to keep a people inside a country they simply don’t want to be part of?

A generation ago, the British in India, the French in Algeria and the Dutch in Java were prepared to shed innocent Indian, African and Indonesian blood in a vain attempt to keep the map of the world coloured as they wanted. Just like Indonesia is now doing in West Papua, the British, French and Dutch Empires
were prepared to use violence to keep people within their imperial territory against their will … to “protect their territorial integrity”.

“Indonesia‘s territorial integrity” is just a bloody map … and it’s a map drenched in the blood of at least 100,000 innocent West Papuans, murdered during 5 years of brutal Indonesian occupation.

The big lie that the West Papuans chose freely to join Indonesia in 1969 has now been exposed. It’s so obviously a lie that democracies like the UK are
now too ashamed to repeat it. And “Indonesia‘s territorial integrity” is just a bloody map. It’s now time for the Western democracies to admit that people are more important than maps; that the era of using violence to keep people inside an Empire against their will is over.

It’s time to put the people of West Papua first. At long last, it’s time to allow the West Papuans the chance to determine their own future.

—————————————————————————————————————

[1] Baroness Royall (UK government spokesperson), House of Lords debate on West Papua, 8th January 2007.

[2] Baroness Symons (UK Foreign Office Minister) House of Lords, 13th December 2004. Confirmed in a letter from Jack Straw, UK Foreign Secretary, 4th February 2005.

[3] On 24th August 2007, David Cameron, Leader of the Opposition in the UK Parliament & Leader of the Conservative Party, met Benny Wenda, Leader of the West Papuan independence movement in the UK. Mr Cameron promised that he would “probe the [UK] government on West Papua’s right to self-determination”.

In reply to his “probing” so far, the UK Foreign Office has simply repeated to Mr Cameron that “the UK government respects Indonesia’s territorial integrity”.