Armed Criminal Group Kills Three TNI in Nduga

Jayapura – Three members of Indonesia military (TNI) who were members of the Nanggala task force were reported killed by armed criminal groups (KKB) in Mugi District, Nduga District, Papua Province on Thursday.

Commander of XVII / Cenderawasih Major General TNI Joshua Sembiring confirmed this from Jayapura, the capital of the province Papua.

“It is true. But I haven’t received a full report about the incident”, said Major General Sembiring.

“How far is the progress, I have not received yet. Please contact Kapendam (Kodam Chief of Information) because currently I’m not in Papua”, he continued.

When asked about the reports of nine KKB being killed and five firearms brought by the KKB were successfully secured, Seimbing confirmed this as well, but for further details please contact Kapendam.

Meanwhile, the data gathered was revealed that the three soldiers who were killed in a gun battle with the KKB namely Serda Mirwariyadin, Serda Yusdin and Serda Siswanto.

Serda Mirwariyadin NRP 21150184631093 Position Babakduk unit 1/2/2/14, Serda Yusdin NRP 21150175490396 Position Barintis Unit 3/2/3/14, dan Serda Siswanto Bayu Aji NRP 21160168880494 Position Bakes Den 1/14.

At Least 3 Indonesian Soldiers Killed by National Liberation Army of West Papua (TPNPB)

7 March 2019, Commander for Defence Area III of Ndugama, has seized 4 weapons, consist of 3 modern weapons and 1 minimi chain weapon.

During the fire contact accompanied by weapons deprivation, at least 3 Indonesian soldiers were killed on the spot in the Windi Village of Derakma District.

This situation happened at 12.30 p.m. It started with 8 Indonesian soldiers from the District Post who went to Widi Village and had a chance to meet with Amos Kogeya as well as his wife. Both of them were interrogated.

After the interrogation, Indonesian soldiers burnt 5 honai belongs to the locals. Because of this situation, TPNPB surrounded those Indonesian soldiers and fire contact was started. They were then involved in the chase which exhausted Indonesian soldiers. TPNPB succeeded to shoot them down and seized 4 weapons.

At 3.00 p.m, 2 choppers entered the area and evacuate the corpses. That is all the report from Ndugama by Egianus Kogeya via Operation Commander, Pemne Kogeya, to TPNPBnews.

Three Indonesian Soldiers Killed in Fresh Papua Violence

Three Indonesian soldiers who attempted to guard the construction of a bridge had been massacred by the National Liberation Army of West Papua (TPNPB) in Nduga, Papua.

The soldiers had just arrived in Yigi village in Nduga district on Thursday (7/3) morning when they were suddenly attacked by a large group of 50-70 people from TPNPB.

It happened on the same ground where another massacre that killed at least 19 workers occurred back in December 2018.

Too many innocent souls had become victims of the separatists while taking part in efforts to boost infrastructure in Papua.

The world should know this truth – the one who should take responsibility for human rights violation in Papua is the separatist group, TPNPB.

A Review on Chagos, Papua, and Vanuatu

A few days ago, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its advisory opinion stating that the UK should return Chagos to Mauritius in order to put an end to decolonization, as Chagos is an inseparable part of Mauritius since its independence day in 1968.

ICJ then refused to give a further opinion by valuing this case as a bilateral case between Mauritius and UK.

This case is surely not related to sovereignty issues, but rather an issue of decolonization which has not yet been settled.

However, the decision of ICJ was seen by few parties, who did not fully understand the meaning of the decision and associate this case to Papua issue, as a decision that supports the separation of Papua from Indonesia―making it seem as if the situation in Papua was also an unfinished decolonization process, and that Papua is a colony of Indonesia.

To straighten the fatal mistake of associating the Chagos issue with Papua’s, there should be an understanding on how Papua had become a province and an inseparable part of Indonesia.

History notes down that Papua case was a dispute between Indonesia and The Netherlands, which resulted to the Netherlands giving back Papua to Indonesia via the establishment of New York Agreementin 1962. This agreement was established due to Netherlands’ refusal to surrender all of its colonized areas when Indonesia declared its independence in 1945.

Both cases of Chagos and Papua is basically connected with an international law doctrine, Uti Possidetis Juris (you possess under law), which basically states that newly formed sovereign state should have the same borders as their preceding dependent area before their independence. This principle lays a foundation to defend the newly formed state not to be divided and separated into several different entities by its colonial power. History taught us that some colonial powers tend to divide their colony into several new entities.

Uti Possidetis Juris was then crystalized and strengthened with norms that prohibit colonial (invading) countries to separate or break the colonized countries with territorial integrity and right to self-determination. It was comprised in paragraph 6 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoplesthat was set through UNGA Resolution No. 1514/XV 1960.

We have witnessed that UK and the Netherlands had taken similar actions where they decided to hold on to some parts of their colonized territory and separated the territory into several entities.

In Papua’s case, the bilateral dispute was then facilitated by UN Secretary-General, where the discussion led to the New York Agreement 1962. The agreement included the process of “handing over” Papua from the Netherlands to the UN, and then back to Indonesia. After Papua was handed back to Indonesia, PEPERA was set to take place. The Preamble Agreementhighlighted that Papua is a dispute matter between Indonesia and The Netherlands.

UN’s involvement in this process was intended to avoid further conflict between Indonesia and the Netherlands, which could have potentially caused an open war. This conflict was then concluded with the ceasefire agreement on the 15th of August 1952.

PEPERA itself was not convened by UN, but by Indonesia itself with the participation of the UN special envoy in it. The term which was used was “plebiscite”, not “self-determination”.

The result of PEPERA was reported to the UN Secretary-General separately both by Indonesian Minister of Foreign Affairs and the UN special envoy. The Secretary-General then reported this to UN General Assembly. During the discussion in the General Assembly, the Netherlands accepted the results of PEPERA as how it was in the resolution. UN General Assembly was also very “correct” in responding to PEPERA. It did not position itself as a party who endorsed the results of the agreement, but rather only to “take note” on the Sec-General report of PEPERA. This confirmed that PEPERA was not a self-determination mechanism like the one typically done by UN.

The facilitation process done by UN’s Secretary-General (even by using PEPERA) needs to be understood as a way to avoid bilateral conflict between Indonesia and the Netherlands, and not as an implementation of the UNGA Resolution No. 1514 (Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples) and No. 1541 (self-determination).

Therefore, history has witnessed the facts that Papua has always been a part of Indonesia since the declaration of independence in 1945.

In this regard, related to the title of this article, the confusing and misleading support of Vanuatu towards Chagos being handed back to Mauritius and Papua to be separated from Indonesia, also needs to be taking into account.

Vanuatu’s support for Mauritius is rather correct and accurate. However, if the same support is used in the Papua case, then it clearly shows that Vanuatu has double standard which demonstrates its embarrassing hypocrisy.

The author has questioned the ideological foundation that motivates Vanuatu to take such contradicting actions related to Mauritius-Chagos and Indonesia-Papua.

Here are few possibilities:

Vanuatu’s support towards decolonization is built on the international law principal of Uti Possidetis Juris. If this is the answer, Vanuatu accepted such doctrine in relation to Chagos, but rejected it if it is used in the case of Papua. Vanuatu’s response in this case can be regarded as irresponsible and hypocritical.

If that is not the reason, then the next possibility for Vanuatu to build its argument on a racist mindset is that they view the establishment of a country based on a monogamous race. This is very likely as Vanuatu often express such ideas through equally racist jargons, such as Melanesian race, etc in various events. The same things always come up in various Vanuatu’s statements to support Papua separation from Indonesia. They used a simple argument: Melanesian Papua is invaded by Indonesia which is a Malay or Asian nation. Vanuatu completely dismissed the fact that many provinces outside Papua in Indonesia are also majorly populated by Melanesians and fundamentally Indonesia is made up of different races, religions, and beliefs. Perhaps, Vanuatu still adheres to an outdated and ancient mindset.

Another possible reason why Vanuatu took such actions is that it wants to raise its name in the international community and to distract their attention from troublesome and difficulties in their own domestic condition such as acute conflicts in politics, social, and economy. Corruption, poverty, and other social issues has put Vanuatu as one of the poorest and backwards country in the world.

However, in the end, it is only Vanuatu that can explain this strange attitude. One advice the author would give to the leaders of Vanuatu: buy a good mirror, and take a look at yourselves.