Is Indonesia important in the eyes of the US?

By Oktovianus Pogau*

The visit of the President of the United States (US), Barack Hussein Obama, is over, but the people and government of Indonesian certainly hope this is not the last time he will be visiting Indonesia. In a speech on the campus of the University of Indonesia, Depok, he said that Indonesia was a part of him.

Naturally, if Obama says so. He spent four years of his life in Indonesia. At the time he went to Indonesia with his mother, Ann Dunham and his stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian. His stepfather was forced to leave college in Hawaii, and was drafted to military service in Papua New Guinea (Papua) by the Indonesian government.

Apart from Obama's childhood in Indonesia, we also need to focus on the arrival of Uncle Sam’s number one citizen. Who is he now? What is his interest in Indonesia? And why did he come?

There is a great difference between the old Obama and the Obama of today. He was just a kid with a "runny nose" with no real influence or power. In fact, he could have not counted at all, being only an ordinary immigrant.

But now it is different. He is the 44th President of a superpower, the US. He is leading a country which has enormous power to rule the world. He is also the number one in the third most populous country in the world today.

In reality, his coming to Indonesia did not correspond to what a lot of Indonesian people had in mind. He actually did not "go home," although he said that Indonesia was his home.

If Indonesia was his home, why did he not visit the elementary school of Menteng? Why did he not stay in touch with childhood friends? Or why he did not meet up with his stepfather’s family which has stayed in Indonesia for very long?

In order to understand his behavior, we need to keep in mind that he came to Indonesia on behalf of the US Government and in order to promote and defend the national interests of the US He did not come for his own personal interests.

Just imagine, Obama was in Indonesia for only 18 hours, unlike his visit to New Delhi in India, which lasted nearly three days. Even in New Delhi, he visited several historical sites, including the Humayun's Tomb monument which, according to some sources, was the inspiration behind the creation and building of the Taj Mahal.

Maybe Indonesia is not so important in the eyes of the US government. Even a visit to the Kalibata National Heroes Cemetery, which was originally part of the White House’s program, was also canceled. His visit which was very short to begin with, was shortened even more.

If so, how important is Indonesia to the US government and to Obama? Obviously not that important. Why? There are three things in my opinion.

Firstly, it is because Indonesia's current position is simply that of a "consumer of policy" of the US and the world, not that of a policy maker. Indonesia does not have strong bargaining power at the international level. In short, Indonesia is considered as a faithful follower who will abide by all US interests as long as necessary.

Secondly, Indonesia does not have the capacity to help the US with their economic growth rate as they are still recovering from the banking crisis which struck three years ago. Today the US still needs to improve its economy, so that it can remain the most powerful in the world.

Thirdly, Indonesia's current position is only that of a spectator; it is not a player in the global arena. A spectator cannot manage the game, nor can it direct it, let alone participate in the game by making policies and deciding the rules; the players are the ones who decide the rules and who have broad competence and power.

From all the Asian countries, the US considers that only China is able to respond to its needs. So do not be surprised if China was the first country in Asia which Obama visited, after his election. Indonesia came as third, and not to mention that the visit was cancelled a few times.

If you are in a position of strength to bargain in the global arena, then the US and someone like Obama would certainly think twice before deciding to visit Indonesia within only a dozen hours. Surely they would turn it into three days, or even four days.

What should Indonesia do to be considered as an important actor by the US ? It is actually quite simple. It should focus on building the country's economic strength internally so as to enable it to mature. It should also enter into partnerships with socialist countries who generally do not only think of their interests. Indonesia should also develop and build its economic strength based on the rule by the people. This would be the first step to becoming a major player in the global arena.

Of course, the time he took to visit Indonesia does not tell you the importance of Indonesia to his eyes, but at least Obama and the US government are aware that a lot was done by the people and government of Indonesia, in order to welcome him during his 18-hour long visit.

As one listened to Obama’s speech on the campus of the University of Indonesia, one could of course conclude that the aim of his visit to Indonesia was to restore the image of the American society in the eyes of Muslims, and to convince them that the US has no intention of waging a war against Muslims. More precisely, it was more because of symbolic politics that Obama came to Indonesia.

What possible steps could be taken by SBY-Boediono so that Indonesia will be considered important by the US, at the next visit? We'll just wait and see.


*Oktovianus Pogau is a freelance journalist, he lives in Jakarta.

Read More......

Obama, Indonesia and Papua

By Oktovianus Pogau*

Obama has already cancelled twice a visit to Indonesia. First, a State visit scheduled from 22 to 24 March 2010 was cancelled as he had to focus his attention on the efforts of getting the Health Insurance Act through U.S. Congress.

Second, the White House again cancelled a planned visit by Obama because he had to devote his full attention to resolving the crisis of the leaking British Petroleum (BP) oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico.

And, for the third time, the number one man in Uncle Sam's country is planning to make a visit to Indonesia. Among the issues which will be discussed, there will be the question of the military co-operation between the United States and the Indonesian military forces (Kopassus).

It is certain now that Obama is scheduled to visit Indonesia for two days and one night, namely from 9 to 10 November 2010.

Obama as a role model

If one looks at the two trips to Indonesia that Obama had to postpone, one sees that it was simply because he chose to solve problems inside his own country. He decided to prioritize the State agenda for the benefit of his own people.

In addition, Obama realizes fully that he became the number one man in a country like the United States because he was elected directly by the people; and not through money politics, money laundering and so forth, practices which are common in a “democratic” country such as Indonesia.

The following question then arises: is there any leader in this country who can follow the example and the behavior of Obama?

On Monday 4 October 2010, Wasior District in West Papua was smashed to smithereens after a flash flood hit the region. Six days later, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was scheduled to visit this area but he abruptly canceled his visit.

On Wednesday 13 October 2010 to be precise, President Yudhoyono visited Wasior in West Papua. But strangely enough, he visited the place and talked to the flood victims for only three hours. That was too short a time for such a visit

As for Vice-President Boediono, he visited Sleman District in the special region of Yogyakarta, where victims had fled the bursts of Mount Merapi. He spoke with the refugees for only five minutes and after that he continued with his journey, even though the refugees had been waiting for him since early morning.

And not to mention the members of the respected House of Representatives who are merrily preparing their trip to go abroad to engage in comparative studies. Would it not be more decent and noble for our honorable councilors to visit the tsunami victims in Mentawai?

We ask ourselves: is this model of government, and of representatives, one which cares for the people?

We would not be wrong if we were to expect that the visit of President Barack Obama to Indonesia will provide important lessons for the leaders of this country, including for the representatives of the people in Parliament. These lessons would enable them to pay attention to basic human rights and to the needs of the citizens of this country as a whole in the event of a disaster.

Obama and Papua

During his childhood years which Obama spent in Indonesia (from 1967 to 1971) Papua was a “volatile” area. It was not clear at the time whether Papua was going to become an independent country or whether it would be part of Indonesia. A number of military operations had been carried out in Papua, with the aim of seizing the territory from Dutch colonial rule.

But then the question arises: why did Obama not mention the matter of Papua and its people in the book which he wrote? Why did he not write about the easternmost province of Indonesia, where PT Freeport McMoran Copper & Gold Inc. is operating today, a multinational company owned by the United States?

Maybe he just did not know that the area was inhabited by people of the Melanesian race, a race which shows very similar traits to his own traits, and which most probably have the same origins. Or perhaps he was too small to think of such matters, let alone think about Papua which was very far away, an area out of reach of the mass media.

And this time around, during his State visit to Indonesia, will Obama talk about the humanitarian crisis in Papua?

Several international human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, often call on the international community for the resolution of the recurrent cases of Human Rights violation perpetrated by the Indonesian military in Papua.

A few weeks ago the Indonesian public and the rest of the world were shocked as they were shown a video depicting images of torture, which was circulated on the Internet on YouTube. The video was entitled: "Indonesian Military Torture and Ill-Treat Indigenous Papuans." This video showed how members of the Indonesian military brutally tortured two civilians who were suspected of being members of the Free Papua Movement (OPM).

The benefits of the visit

The visit of the president of a country with super power status will hopefully bring important benefits. The bilateral co-operation between Indonesia and the United States, a relation that has existed for a long time, can be increased further.

In addition, there are great expectations as to how the humanitarian crisis throughout Indonesia will be discussed, in particular the situation in the Moluccas and in Papua. During their meeting, both Obama and SBY need to be aware that many military officers who should be protecting and nurturing the community instead often commit inhumane acts.

As long as their rights are still being violated, peace will never become a reality and conflicts will continue to take place in Indonesia. Hopefully the meetings between Obama and SBY will have an encouraging outcome which will contribute to the enforcement of human rights throughout Indonesia, especially in Papua. Wellcome Obama!

* Oktovianus Pogau is an Alliance of Papuan Students activist.

Read More......

Why Papuan leaders went to the US Congress?

By Budi Hernawan*

On Sept. 22, 2010, the US Congress Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the global environment held a public hearing on the issue of human rights abuse in Papua. It invited key witnesses from Papua, the US and the Netherlands. This marked an historical event that allowed Papuan representatives to officially express their concerns before the house of representatives of a foreign country.

The question is why Indonesia’s House of Representatives and/or the Indonesia’s People Consultative Assembly has never conducted such a hearing? And, additionally, why is it necessary for Papuan representatives to go to foreign soil to be able to express their views?

The hearings drew various interpretations on the importance of the event. Indonesian Ambassador to the US Dino Patti Djalal made a public comment that only three congressmen attended the hearing and thus, downplayed the potential outcomes of the hearings.

Whereas various groups of young Papuans staged rallies both inside and outside Papua to express their overwhelming support of the hearings. Given the long sense of injustice that Papuans feel has gone unnoticed by the international community, it is not surprising that many Papuans on the street dream that these hearings might significantly change their daily lives.

These hearings might be considered one outcome of the deep impasse between Papua and Jakarta following the mass demonstrations held in Jayapura on July 8-9, 2010. These protests centrally focused on the wishes of the Papuan community to “hand back” the Special Autonomy Law (SAL) implemented in 2001. It is important to make sense of this event through the divergent perspectives of the key actors and organizations involved, as these perspectives are reflective of broader attitudes towards establishing dialogue between Jakarta and Papua.

First, various peace talk initiatives from Papua’s side have been established with key policy makers in Jakarta, beginning with FORERI in 1998. The response to this initiative was an official invitation from then president B.J. Habibie to 100 Papuan representatives to hold a dialogue with him and his cabinet.
This event took place on Feb. 26, 1999, at Merdeka Palace when Tom Beanal addressed the president expressing the Papuan aspirations to separate from Indonesia. President Habibie told Beanal to go home and think about his proposal. This event created a sense of euphoria among Papuans.

After this event, the central government seemed reluctant towards “dialogue” initiatives. Papuan civil society organizations, under the leadership of interfaith leaders, have promoted the idea of “Papua Land of Peace” since 2001, but this has not progressed, due to the lack of any significant response from key state institutions. Recently, the Papua Peace Network (Jaringan Damai Papua) established by the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) and Neles Tebay, promoted the idea of a dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. Similarly, there has been minimal positive response from the House, the assembly or the government.

Second, many victims of human rights abuse in Papua have continuously raised their causes to the attention of the Attorney General, the Indonesian National Commission on Human Rights and the Supreme Court at their own expense. The victims from Wasior (2001) and Wamena (2003), in particular, have been waiting for more than six years for their cases to be prosecuted by the Attorney General’s Office, let alone other cases.

Third, since the enactment of SAL in December 2001, both Papua and Jakarta have failed to put their trust and effort into implementing the law. For instance, the administration of then president Megawati Soekarnoputri created three provinces that contradicted the spirit and the letter of SAL, while it took some years before Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s administration issued a decree to establish the Papua’s People Assembly (MRP).

On the Papuan side, the Papuan Customary Council (DAP) handed back the law in August 2005, and the MRP recently did the same thing because it believed that the special autonomy (Otsus) had failed to address Papuan grievances. Moreover, the Papuan Legislative Council (DPRP) has failed to legislate the operating regulations mandatory to implement SAL.

In these three major issues, the role of the House and the assembly remain absent. They fail to address the aspirations of its constituents with any policies that would have guided the government and the Papuans. Of course, various House commissions have come to and from Papua to talk to various key actors on the ground, but such visits have not been translated into policy output.

It is not surprising, therefore, to learn that the debate has so far focused on the polarized sides of the central government and the indigenous Papuans. Such an elusive presence is not novel to the House and the assembly. During the peace talks on Aceh, the House was not able to provide adequate political and legal support to the government to address the issue. Instead, it politicized the peace talk for the interests of political parties against the government and thus, jeopardized the peace talks. The assembly was simply silent at the time.

This is the time for the elected members of the House and/or the assembly, representing Papuan constituents, to hold a special session with key actors discussing Papuan issues, similar to the US hearing. However, one might raise the question of whether such an idea is realistic.

The media has frequently exposed how many House members are absent or simply fall asleep during debates in the House. It also publicizes how the House tends to spend public funding for their own working facilities or the so-called “comparative studies”.

If this remains the case, it should not be surprising that Papuan leaders will again appear in other international fora to raise their causes.


The writer, a former director of the Office for Justice and Peace of the Catholic Church in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia, is currently a PhD scholar at the Regulatory Institutions Network, the Australian National University.

Link :

Read More......