Senin, 01 April 2013

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. ●

New perspective for food security


New perspective for food security
Dinna Wisnu ;  Co-Founder and Director of Paramadina
Graduate School of Diplomacy, Jakarta
JAKARTA POST, 20 Maret 2013

  
Food security is a strategic issue for countries in ASEAN but its achievement gets harder from year-to-year. According to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, 53 percent of Southeast Asia’s 600 million population lives in poverty with an income of less than US$2 per day, while 18 percent of them earn less than $1.25 per day.

With continuously rising food prices and unpredictable food supply, these poor certainly do not earn enough to meet a sufficient daily nutrition intake. This puts Southeast Asia second only to sub-Saharan Africa in terms of poverty levels.

In terms of malnutrition, according to the World Food Program of the United Nations, only in Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam is less than 5 percent of the population malnourished. Indonesia is at medium-low with 5-14 percent of its population suffering malnutrition. The Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand record 15-24 percent malnutrition with 25-34 percent malnutrition in Laos and Cambodia. All are poor indicators of food security in the region particularly considering that socioeconomic inequality remains a serious problem here.

Not long ago ASEAN adopted the Framework Action Plan on Rural Development and Poverty Eradication 2011-2015 as the basis for various ASEAN Senior Official Meetings in preparation for the ASEAN Economic Community. The goal is to address the above-mentioned concerns.

This is yet another effort to enhance previous initiatives, such as the ASEAN Emergency Rice Reserve (AERR) agreed in 1979, the study team funded by Japan International Cooperation Agency in 2001 which assessed why AERR was not successful in collecting the minimum rice reserve, the Series of Technical Meetings on Rice Reserves in 2002 which later endorsed the Pilot Project of East Asia Rice Reserve System for three years prior to the establishment of the East Asia Rice Reserve System which then evolved into the ASEAN Plus Three Emergency Rice Reserve (APTERR).

Then there was the East Asia Emergency Rice Reserve to support rice trading between country members, and the ASEAN Food Security Information System (AFSIS) developed together with the Food and Agriculture Organization, for the exchange of information on agricultural and food commodities.

Will the framework of action plan be any different in enhancing food security in ASEAN? The biggest question one should ask is whether the food security problem in ASEAN is caused by lack of supply of grains (particularly rice). Would pooling rice for emergency times solve the problem of food insecurity or a mere simple non-interventionist way of making leaders of the nations in the region feel assured that they won’t be held accountable for not doing enough on the issue?
People in Southeast Asia are blessed with a diversity of food. Studies on food security across the globe suggest that looking at food security by emphasizing food supply is outdated.

A study by Randy Stringer in Australia (2000) shows that there is actually enough food to feed the world. If proximity to food is key to getting food, think about how Southeast Asia is blessed with fertile soil, rains, tropical weather, ponds, seas, a richness in culinary skills and large numbers of people working as farmers and fishermen.

Even if the problem is with supply, we can’t look at it from the perspective of boosting production alone. There must be an issue of choice, which is made at the level of individual farmers or fishermen, agribusinesses and entrepreneurs, local governments and central governments. Other studies also suggest that consumers often shape the state of food security.

However, with the scale of poverty in Southeast Asia, it is hard to imagine that the problem is with consumers being picky about food. Sure there are people in the region who are influenced by diet, modern lifestyles and personal preferences in food, but there has not been any collective action to shape demand for certain commodities.

It is time that governments in the region started looking at food security from a new perspective. Food security is not purely about supply and demand but also about paths to providing supply of food and ending the mismatch in approaches when handling producers, businesses and consumers.

Cooperation across governments in the region should shift from collecting the output from producers and emphasizing trade, to enabling communities. Certain countries with less capacity to produce may need support in the food trade, but the food trade itself cannot be as fulfilling when producers and agribusiness handle problems in their own (individual) ways.

In supplying food, we should internalize in our minds that farmers and fishermen in Southeast Asia are communities that think, act, learn in traditional ways, not just because many of them are still under-educated but because they value such community-based living. They have survived for generations because they work as groups of people who care for one another. Machines are barely used not only because farmers and fishermen are clusters of poor people, but also because they jeopardize employment for family members and neighbors.

After all, governments in general have yet to develop employment programs in rural areas. Governments may provide subsidized fertilizers and seeds, but farmers have trouble obtaining them. Consequently, even if the national governments call for the production of certain commodities, farmers and fishermen will have trouble meeting them because their tools, knowledge and networks are very limited.

Businesses come between farmers and fishermen, consumers and governments. They want the shortest way to get raw materials and with the least cost.

Unfortunately in most places across ASEAN, logistics is still a big issue. Roads are bad or absent, with heavy traffic congestion, and there are long queues at ports. On top of this, local farmers cannot yet produce reliable volumes and quality of raw materials for agribusiness. Producers of fruit compote (dodol) in Indonesia, for instance, complain that they may pay for 10 fruits but not all meet the requirement for compote production.

The solution proposed by businesses is imports or import quotas. The problem with this is that it does not solve the problem at the producer level.

Imports do not encourage local production and do not guarantee stability of price either. When prices rise, producers are not the happy ones because the benefits go to traders rather than themselves. Worse, with the high cost of food, producers are among the poor experiencing food insecurity. The problems of business are also not solved by imports or import quotas.

Farmers and fishermen should be seen as groups of employers and employees with precious adaptive skills and connections to nature. When facilitated with an array of tools and networks, supported by science and governments who care, they will provide longer-term solutions to food security.

In the meantime, entrepreneurs and businesses in the food sector should be encouraged to work within the frame of community development with producers. Businesses should be facilitated to develop “the conveyor-belt” of production starting from the farm.

In short, food security is an urgent issue, but we cannot handle it with emergency policies. Our viewpoint should be far into the future. Food security is not just about food on the table, but also about securing employment on the farms, ensuring that work as farmers and fishermen is attractive to the younger generations.

If governments cannot guarantee full employment for all citizens, then the least they can do is to ensure that all ASEAN citizens have the options to keep their current jobs on the farms, seas and coastal areas and as agribusiness entrepreneurs. ●