Australian government bypasses Jakarta, builds ties with military

Australian government bypasses Jakarta, builds ties with military Lauren Gumbs  ;   The writer holds a Masters in Communications from Griffith University in Queensland and is doing a Masters in Human Rights at Curtin University in Perth

JAKARTA POST,  27 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                                                                                       

Relations might be tense between Jakarta and Canberra, but between Canberra and the Indonesian Military (TNI), things have never been better. Indonesian officials are in disbelief that special life rafts carrying undocumented migrants were given by Australian authorities for the purpose of sending back migrants but concede that there might be a special agreement between Australian and Indonesian defense force chiefs. Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa remains steadfast in opposing the coalition’s boat U-turns despite six reported incidents where boat people have been pushed back or even sent back on new lifeboats purchased solely for that task. And President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, deeply concerned about impositions on sovereignty as well as public ire, is still smarting after the phone-tapping furor and recent accidental maritime incursions. The TNI however, previously told to beef up maritime border protection and point its radar Australia’s way, has been largely silent on rhetoric about threats to Indonesia’s sovereignty from Australia and somehow missed two giant orange life rafts being chaperoned around the sea for several days before finally being nudged back toward Indonesia. After a lifeboat filled with migrants landed on popular Pangandaran Beach in West Java in early February, Indonesian media reported the tongue-in-cheek comments of TNI commander Gen. Moeldoko on the police investigation into the occurrence; an event that the TNI and perhaps even the National Police — whose job it is to catch people smugglers — was almost certainly well aware of and well informed about. Reports said a sophisticated life raft suspected to have been given by Australian authorities had landed on Pangandaran Beach with dozens of migrants onboard and the case was being looked into by police. But Moeldoko refused to give anything away. “So strange, it’s not like the boat could have just fallen out of the sky. It’s now being investigated by the police,” he said. According to Prime Minister Tony Abbott, the “way to Australia is closed” and boat arrivals have stopped. But this couldn’t have happened without the TNI and police who have done more recently to apprehend people smugglers and police maritime borders than they have in 10 years of otherwise unwelcoming tolerance of the thousands of refugees and migrants waiting in transit around the country. And this in the face of a controversial quasi-immigration/military led unilateral policy that has irritated Jakarta since the 2013 elections and has the Australian media and public locked out of informed debate by strict terms of operational security. The Abbott government has managed to bypass the endless rhetoric and political indolence of Jakarta, circumventing political stonewalls altogether, and halting boat arrivals with the direct support of the TNI and police. Australian Immigration and Border Protection Minister Scott Morrison’s operational secrecy is, in effect, so as not to ruffle Jakarta’s feathers with public debate on policies affecting both countries’ sovereignty. But this military cooperation could stoke a trend that is seeing military figures on the rise in Indonesian politics, traditionally a strongman’s game. TNI previously had to defend claims they were not in line with government policy over allegations that Moeldoko had personally come to an agreement on boats with Australian Defense Force Chief Gen. David Hurley. Moeldoko depoliticized the allegations and referred to his own operational discretion, subtly portraying the extent to which the military still commands authority and legitimacy over certain matters. The Jakarta Post quoted Moeldoko as saying, “My statement did not indicate that I agreed [with the policy], but that I understood such tactical moves. And my reasoning was that the UN declaration says that every country has the right to protect its sovereignty. If it were my responsibility, I would have done the same thing. So, that’s the context. “I am not talking about foreign policy. I am talking about tactical matters in the field,” he said. Indonesian lawmakers are angry at this latest Australian “provocation”, however Singaporean fighter planes crossed into Indonesian airspace this week, demonstrating that threats to Indonesia’s territorial sovereignty can come from other directions, and extenuating the way that the TNI has reasserted itself into the political debate. With such sovereign and domestic threats featuring on the horizon, and the endless corruption scandals biting chunks out of democratic legitimacy, some fear that Indonesian voters may turn towards the strong leadership offered by presidential candidates with a military background. Indeed, Prabowo Subianto, a former general, is second in line to the throne after Jakarta Governor Joko Widodo (so far an unofficial candidate). The presence of conservatively nationalist military actors in the political sphere signals retrograde forces at play in Indonesia’s still vulnerable democratization. In Indonesia politics can be a largely patrimonial game, so if Australia enjoys special cooperation on a controversial humanitarian issue now it may one day have to return the favor. ●

New geography for domestic workers Lauren Gumbs; The writer holds a Masters in communications from Griffith University in Queensland and is doing a Masters in human rights at Curtin University in Perth

JAKARTA POST,  01 Februari 2014

                                                                                                                        

                                                                                         

                                                      

Indonesia is increasingly more intolerant of domestic worker rights abuses as the lack of safeguards in the migrant maid industry perpetuates an underclass of vulnerable working women in servitude. There are nearly 900,000 overseas domestic workers who inject billions of dollars a year into the Indonesian economy, yet nationalist politicians argue that Indonesia needs to provide jobs back home to prevent the ongoing exploitation of its overseas female workers. Indonesia plans to stop all maids going abroad to work by 2017, but it is unlikely the industry will disappear altogether despite rising wages at home. Australian observers suggest that the valuable service such domestic workers provide might be better supported and protected if maids were able to work in developed countries under appropriate temporary migration schemes. Migrant worker rights will be an issue in upcoming nationalist electoral campaigns because public sentiment is being stoked by reactionary escalations in policy as well as renewed politician interest in worker’s rights. Syahri Sakidin, a former Indonesian diplomat, said at the moment: “Both issues of spying and sending workers abroad are a good-blend topic of discussion to show off one’s patriotic and heroic sentiment In Indonesia, especially among politicians.” Indonesia warned hiring countries, if they were found to have violated rights standards, it would ban Indonesian migrant workers, known as Tenaga Kerja Wanita (TKW), and it came good on its word, temporarily banning domestic workers from five countries earlier in the year. Rights violators Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and Jordan were banned for not adequately protecting workers’ rights, though Indonesia often appears less concerned with establishing protections for human rights than defending its sovereignty and dignity in line with its growing status. Indonesia does not want to be seen as a population available for export and while it brokered a deal that got Malaysia off the naughty list, it reiterated its promise to end the maid trade in four years’ time, as too has the Philippines. Back in June, Moh Jumhur Hidayat, the chairman Agency for the Placement and Protection of Indonesian Migrant Workers (BNP2TKI), inferred that it was preferable Indonesians were free under poorer conditions than better off in servitude, deeming rights abuses a slight on the nation. Indonesia’s dignity has taken several beatings this year as Hong Kong jailed a couple in September for torturing an Indonesian maid. Radio Australia reported on the “slave like” conditions faced by maids working in Hong Kong. Then in November, Saudi Arabia’s amnesty deadline for illegal migrants concluded and the Kingdom started rounding up tens of thousands of foreign workers and putting them in detention, testimony to the enormous people-trafficking trade that operates in accord with migrant labor.  Meanwhile, Malaysia put an Indonesian maid on death row for murder and presidential hopeful Prabowo Subianto jumped at the chance to unify public support behind migrant worker rights, becoming involved in the maid’s appeal to the approval of an indignant public. Domestic labor is sometimes referred to as a legalized slave trade, owing to vast records of trafficking, physical and sexual abuse, unpaid work and restrictions on freedom. Indonesia’s victims number in their thousands, maids who return from abroad without pay or bearing physical and emotional scars of abuse. Developed countries have predominantly avoided visa schemes for low skilled domestic workers due to the potential for trafficking and exploitation as well as increased illegal migration. However they too are not immune to trafficking and where visas allow for low skilled workers, such as Australia’s 457 visa, rights abuses and exploitation follow. The difference is that in Australia labor violations are comparatively limited in number and legally addressed within spheres of human rights and criminality. Despite the risks and injury facing migrant domestic workers, the industry is a significant part of many Southeast Asian economies and will continue to thrive while other economic opportunities develop. Female domestic workers provide valuable services to families, services that are lacking in developed countries like Australia for instance, where the gender equality gap has never been fully closed due to the high costs of childcare. Ross Taylor, president of the Perth-based Indonesia Institute, advocates for a visa scheme that would facilitate domestic employment in Australia, although he admits there are significant obstacles to policy change as such a program would be a major paradigm shift in the social and political landscape. Australia risks creating its own underclass of migrant women doing a job too poorly paid and appreciated for them to undertake themselves. Such a scheme would need to demonstrate substantial benefits for both employees and employers, starting with fundamental rights protections; fixed hours, a fixed minimum wage, living options and holiday leave. That achieved, Graham Hornel, an Australian migration agent, also believes if carefully hashed out, opening Australia’s temporary migration doors to qualified Indonesian workers in selected appropriate occupations, may be a way to repair recent damage to the relationship.  He said instead of worker’s options being limited to countries where there has been a consistent pattern of abuse, visa schemes in countries with adequate rights recognition and appropriate legislation could enhance regional partnerships, if such projects could get off the ground. “Virtually every program, including the East Java-Western Australia sister state relationship has just not moved forward: the Working Holiday Visa, the ‘Colombo Plan 2’ initiatives etc. A combination of apathy, clear lack of genuine commitment and an underlying mutual distrust, is killing the best of ideas and opportunities,” Hornel said. Banning certain countries from employing maids signifies an extreme reaction to a serious and unacceptable situation involving thousands of legal and illegal workers whose economic precariousness drives a poorly regulated industry consisting of women taking risky employment options. Providing adequate jobs for low skilled Indonesian women is a fair suggestion, but in reality expanding the geography for a valuable and in demand trade might yield more measurable social and economic benefits. Such proposals would need to get Indonesia onside for a re-evaluation and appraisal of how the industry is viewed and its workers treated. ●

Civil society groups flourish in Indonesia, but threatened by ‘ormas’ bill

Civil society groups flourish in Indonesia, but threatened by ‘ormas’ bill Lauren Gumbs  ;  The writer holds a Master’s in communications from Griffith University in Queensland and is currently studying a Master’s in human rights at Curtin University in Perth

JAKARTA POST, 18 April 2013

  

Indonesia’s flourishing civil society activists and advocacy organizations stand in contrast to a darker culture of mob violence, militarism and extremist groups. Despite the recent rise in reported conflicts carried out by mobs of local vigilantes, soldiers and hard-line Islamic groups, Indonesia also has a growing civil society that is vocal, active and mobilized for positive social and political change. Because of civil society efforts, the House of Representatives has halted its deliberations on revising the controversial mass organizations (ormas) bill. The House was supposed to deliberate and pass the proposed amendments, which would give government officials discretionary powers to suspend and dissolve civil society organizations (CSOs), restrict local and international CSOs with regard to the Pancasila ideology, force international organizations to secure permits and limit the activities of CSOs to those within the purview of “the duty of law enforcers and government”. The reason the plenary meetings did not go ahead was because it was too risky for lawmakers to alienate voters before the 2014 legislative election, particularly when civil society groups can take strong political positions and have the power to mobilize members to pointed effect. But isn’t this why the bill was drafted in the first place? To tighten the reins on dissent? It is to its credit that Indonesian civil society has managed to stall the ormas bill so far, and only due to the ability of opposition groups to foster enough bridging capital to overcome differences and reject what they see as excessive controls on civil and political freedoms. Even though they hold different viewpoints, Muslim groups and rights groups recognized what sort of repercussions the bill would have on their organizational activities and for civil society as a whole. The World Alliance for Citizen Participation (CIVICUS) published an open letter to the House, criticizing the proposed amendments that would further limit CSOs above and beyond already-restrictive legislation. CIVICUS, in alliance with the International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development, and the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), said the already vague and overbroad provisions should not seek to further expand state interference in CSOs, which are crucial for a robust democratic society, and that mass organizations should comply with international standards and constitutional protections on the freedom of association. They said the bill severely undermined freedom of association enshrined in the Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Indonesia is signatory. CIVICUS suggested the House formulate alternative legislation to create an enabling environment for civil society free from unwarranted restrictions. While many Indonesians feel powerless to act against injustice, compelled to violence or apathy, the efflorescence of grass-roots civil society organizations speaks of a significant transformation in the way people across the country demand change and undertake rights claims. Indeed, the Hotel Indonesia traffic circle in Jakarta is awash on most days with demonstrators and protesters advocating a host of causes, from feminist warriors to aggrieved farmers, whose relentless presence represents a movement toward recognition of democratic consolidation, people power and democratic rationality. The rise of civil society groups echoes the cultural tendencies of Indonesians to band together over common problems, but this innate community spirit has now evolved into a politicized form of social capital that is contributing to the practical realization of democratic norms. That is, democratic norms are realized in processes that allow legitimate actors to advocate for and demand social change instead of resorting to violent and unjust means. However, as the attempt to introduce even more restrictive legislation proves, a flourishing civil society challenges the authority of lawmakers, the military and anyone else who employ extractive measures to exploit and perpetuate the status quo.  Yappika, an Indonesian civil society alliance for democracy that was founded in 1991 to strengthen civil society organizations, created a so-called civil society index. In a report issued in 2006, Yappika said that despite significant environmental and structural obstacles, such as legal barriers, poor law enforcement and a lack of financial resources, Indonesian CSOs scored high for values and participation.  Indonesia has a civil group for just about anything one can think of: the Pedestrian Coalition advocates for safer streets; the New Alliance for Men has men who are unafraid of wearing miniskirts in public to oppose violence against women; Indonesia for the Environment; the Indonesia Prosperity Foundation; the Foundation for Women in Small Businesses, and many more. Last week, members of the Yogya Pedicab Driver Community took to Yogyakarta’s streets to campaign against thuggish behavior after 11 Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus) commandos were named suspects in the murder of four detainees inside Cebongan prison. In Jakarta last Wednesday, the streets were blocked by members of workers’ unions protesting low wages and a lack of health care. Legitimate civil society organizations do not engage in violence; none of these groups will seal a church, attack a family, or raid a prison to get what they want, but they will march through the streets with banners, lobby the government, talk to journalists and write press releases for their web pages. The question is, will the government listen and support them, or will it continue to overlook and even protect the vigilantes, hard-liners, village mobs and military personnel? The shift toward civil society groups and the vocal, diverse range of their advocacy, despite the challenging operating environment, is a definite positive for Indonesia’s democracy and development and challenges an insidious culture of violence, abuse of power and vigilantism, by encouraging participation and resistance against illegitimate means of dominance. ●

Conflict in Papua produces more deaths, arguments

Conflict in Papua produces more deaths, arguments Lauren Gumbs ;  The writer holds a Masters in Communications from Griffith University in Queensland and is currently doing a Masters in Human Rights at Curtin University in Perth

JAKARTA POST, 20 Maret 2013

The terrorist image of armed resistance movements in Papua was enhanced by the recent ambushes and shootings of eight soldiers. By murdering Indonesian soldiers, the perpetrators only fuelled support for lawful suppression.  There is no better way to consolidate Indonesian support for the subjugation of Papuan “rebels” than to construct troops as martyrs, consistent with the image of the Indonesian Military (TNI) soldiers’ honorable and heroic purpose defending security in Papua.  In the ensuing debates surrounding the latest tragedies, Indonesia’s lawful sovereignty over Papua and use of force is for Indonesians, a normative assumption.  Why has Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua never been sufficiently challenged? Because Indonesia has worked hard to suppress the scale of Papuan support for independence and control the image of independence movements. It is alleged that Papuan separatist movements are small in number but highly violent.  Pro-independence Papuans are first and foremost fighting for the ability to be who they say they are and to represent their aspirations for nationhood. It’s a battle for the right to freely identify oneself. If the media were able to access Papua, the consensus for an independence movement would be broader and, thus, gain more influence.  So closing the region to media and maintaining an army with terrifying discretionary power not only allows Indonesia to control separatists with force, but also representation. It is a public relations tactic that leaves very little room to build a peaceful case for self determination. It doesn’t seem to matter how many shocking human rights abuses are publicized; the presence and use of military force on the Papuan people is still justified and supported by Indonesians under the claim to  lawful sovereignty. Commissioner at National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM), Natalius Pigai, made comments last Wednesday that the TNI said offended the families of the dead. The TNI and government ministers expressed indignation over Pigai’s statements that the TNI forces were mismanaged. Government ministers demanded Pigai be brought before the House of Representatives and his position as commissioner was threatened. Pigai then publicly apologized to the military. It is indicative of an extreme lack of recognition that the only government appointed group supporting the rights of Papuan people and questioning people’s expectations about how war produces casualties, is apologizing to a military whose soldiers have been accused of mass genocide, were indicted for burning Papuan people’s genitals and who open fire on demonstrators. The deaths of eight TNI soldiers and four civilians in separate incidents in Papua province led to many questions but clearly consolidated supportive sentiment for the activities of soldiers in Papua among commenter’s on news media sites as well as the responses of government representatives.  For pro-independence activists, the major obstacle to self determination is to obtain legitimacy. Papuan secession lacks strength because Papuans are denied recognition. Information and image control is fundamental to any sort of domination, therefore Indonesia’s “unity in diversity” is supposed to allow for difference and then consolidate it under nationalism. Papuans can be different, but if they don’t want to be part of Indonesia they are rebels.  The recent shootings were detrimental to recognition because they further reinforced the danger of dissenters and confirmed the necessity of ongoing security. Recently newly elected Governor Lukas Enembe said he will support dialogue and give voice to the various groups expressing dissent and dissatisfaction. Can he do this with all the guns pointed about? Indonesia has significant control over the image of the civil conflict, which is currently a no go zone for interference because it is framed as an in-house dispute with all the trappings that sovereignty bestows to keep outside accusations at arms length. The reality of the situation and the real critical mass of support of autonomy are measured in mere leakages of information from activist, refugees and rebel leaders who are impugned as terrorists. Even President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s “welfare approach” wherein trillions of rupiah was poured in but never made it to the people, has illustrated that bribery cannot effect conquest and that despite trying to win hearts and minds through development, Indonesia has not improved the welfare of Papuans or their desires for independence.  Enembe expressed the hope he would be able to better distribute resources and engage dialogue in order to end the conflict and violence that has plagued the region. According to Enembe, government policies are not what Papuans want or hope for; development projects are vulnerable to corruption and while Papua is still seen as a land to profit from, problems will continue. Enembe plans to give voices to all interest groups in Papua and asked the government to closely monitor development programs. However, as leader of the National Liberation Army of the Free Papuan Movement, Goliath Tabuni, said, the independence movement will not surrender and will continue their cause to institute full independence in Papua. With the ingrained culture of violence perpetuated by the military presence, and an ongoing denial of legitimacy for Papuan independence, this can only mean more conflict. ●