U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

58–430PDF 2010

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: WHEN WILL

INDONESIA’S MILITARY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

FOR DELIBERATE AND SYSTEMATIC ABUSES IN

WEST PAPUA?

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND 

THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010

Serial No. 111–132

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. Joseph Y. Yun, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian and 

Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State .......................................................... 14

Mr. Robert Scher, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for South and 

Southeast Asia, Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, U.S. Department of 

Defense .................................................................................................................. 21

Pieter Drooglever, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Institute of Netherlands History ........................................................................................................................ 39

Mr. Octovianus Mote, Founder, West Papua Action Network, President, 

Papua Resource Center ....................................................................................... 45

Mr. Henkie Rumbewas, International Advocate, Australia West Papua Association (AWPA) ..................................................................................................... 52

Mr. Nicholas Simeone Messet, West Papua .......................................................... 58

Mr. Salamon Maurits Yumame, Head of FORDEM (The Democratic Forum) ... 65

S. Eben Kirksey, Ph.D., Visiting Assistant Professor, The Graduate Center, 

The City University of New York ....................................................................... 73

Sophie Richardson, Ph.D., Asia Advocacy Director, Human Rights Watch ........ 80

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress from 

American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and 

the Global Environment: Prepared statement ................................................... 6

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 12

Mr. Joseph Y. Yun: Prepared statement ............................................................... 17

Mr. Robert Scher: Prepared statement .................................................................. 24

Pieter Drooglever, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ...................................................... 42

Mr. Octovianus Mote: Prepared statement ........................................................... 47

Mr. Henkie Rumbewas: Prepared statement ........................................................ 55

Mr. Nicholas Simeone Messet: Prepared statement ............................................. 61

Mr. Salamon Maurits Yumame: Prepared statement ........................................... 68

S. Eben Kirksey, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................ 75

Sophie Richardson, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .................................................... 82

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 114

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 116

The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega: Material submitted for the record ...... 117

(1)

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: WHEN WILL INDONESIA’S MILITARY BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR DELIBERATE AND SYSTEMATIC 

ABUSES IN WEST PAPUA? 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC

AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:06 p.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The subcommittee hearing will come to 

order. This is the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific 

and the Global Environment. And the topic for discussion this 

afternoon with our witnesses is ‘‘Crimes Against Humanity: When 

Will Indonesia’s Military Be Held Accountable for Deliberate and 

Systematic Abuses in West Papua?’’

I am going to begin the hearing by making my opening statement, and I will then defer to my colleagues who have also joined 

me this afternoon, my good friend, Dr. Diane Watson, former ambassador to the FSM and a Member from the State of California. 

Also, my dear colleague, Congressman Inglis, has joined us at this 

hearing. 

After giving and presenting our opening statements, then we will 

then have our friends from the administration testify before us. So 

I will begin now with my opening statement. 

My good friend and colleague, the ranking member of the subcommittee is not here with us, but that is fully understandable. 

There has been so much on our schedules. And I want to note for 

the record that my dear friend and colleague, Congressman Don 

Payne, unfortunately, is still on travel. But he does definitely want 

to send his personal regards and to submit his statement as part 

of the record of this hearing. 

To my knowledge, today’s hearing is historic. This hearing is the 

first hearing ever held in the U.S. Congress that gives voice to the 

people of West Papua. Since 1969, the people of West Papua have 

been deliberately and systematically subjected to slow motion genocide, in my humble opinion, by Indonesian military forces. And yet 

Indonesia declares that the issue is an internal matter, while the 

U.S. Department of State recognizes and respects the territorial inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:47 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\APGE\092210B\58430 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

tegrity of Indonesia. The truth is, this is no issue of territorial integrity or an internal matter. The record is clear on this point. 

West Papua was a former Dutch colony for years, just as East 

Timor was a former Portuguese colony, just as Indonesia was a 

former colony of the Netherlands. Because of its status as a former 

colony, East Timor achieved its independence from Indonesia in 

2002 through a referendum sanctioned by the United Nations despite Indonesia’s serious objections over East Timor’s right of selfdetermination. 

In contrast, in 1962, the United States pressured the Dutch to 

turn over control of West Papua to the United Nations. Under the 

U.S.-brokered deal, then known as Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker’s 

proposal, Indonesia was to make arrangements with the assistance 

and participation of the United Nations to give Papuans an opportunity to determine whether they wished to become part of Indonesia or not. 

In what became known as the Act of No Choice carried out in 

1969, 1,025 West Papuan elders, under heavy military surveillance, 

were selected to vote on behalf of some 800,000 West Papuans regarding the territory’s political status. In spite of serious violations 

of the U.N. charter and no broad-based referendum, West Papua 

was forced to become a part of Indonesia at the barrel of a gun. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, and I quote,

‘‘Declassified documents released in July 2004 indicate that the 

United States supported Indonesia’s takeover of Papua in the 

lead up to the 1969 Act of Free Choice, even though it was understood that such a move was likely unpopular with the 

Papuans. The documents reportedly indicate that the United 

States estimated that between 85 and 90 percent of Papuans 

were opposed to Indonesian rule and that, as a result, the Indonesians were incapable of winning an open referendum at 

the time of Papua’s transition from Dutch colonial rule. Such 

steps were evidently considered necessary to maintain the support of Suharto’s Indonesia during the height of the Cold War.’’

Bluntly put, in exchange for Suharto’s anti-Communist stance, 

the United States expended the hopes and dreams and the lives of 

some 100,000 West Papuans who consequently died as a result of 

Indonesian military rule. Although some challenge this estimate, it 

is an indisputable fact that Indonesia has deliberately and systematically committed crimes against humanity and has yet to be held 

accountable. 

While I have expressed my concern that there is strong indication that the Indonesian Government has committed genocide 

against the West Papuans, I am disappointed that the U.S. Department of State requested that I omit the word ‘‘genocide’’ in the initial title I put forward for this hearing. The State Department requested a change in title based on the assertion that the word 

genocide is a legal term. 

Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes of Genocide defines genocide as, 

and I quote,

‘‘any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in 

whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group; 

3

killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental 

harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the 

group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical 

destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to 

prevent births within the groups; forcibly transferring children 

of the group to another group.’’

This definition of genocide under international law accurately describes the crimes against humanity perpetrated by Indonesia’s 

military, whether the U.S. State Department agrees or not. But 

given U.S. complicity, it is little wonder that every administration 

wishes to distance itself from this ugliness. 

As Joseph Conrad wrote in his book, The Heart of Darkness, and 

I quote,

‘‘The conquest of the earth, which mostly means the taking 

away from those who have a different complexion or slightly 

flatter noses than ourselves is not a pretty thing when you look 

into it too much.’’

When you look into it too much, nothing about Indonesia’s ruthless brutality or U.S. complicity is a pretty thing. Three years ago, 

I led a congressional delegation to Indonesia under personal promise from President SBY and Vice President Kalla that I would be 

granted 5 days to visit Biak, Manokwari, and most importantly, 

Jayapura, in support of efforts to implement special autonomy that 

was approved by the Government of Indonesia since 2001. 

However, while en route to Jakarta, I received word that the Indonesian Government would only grant 3 days for my visit. Upon 

my arrival in November 3 years ago, I was informed that I would 

be granted only 1 day and that I would not be allowed even to visit 

Jayapura. As it played out, I was granted 2 hours in Biak and 10 

minutes in Manokwari. 

In Biak, I met with Governor Suebu and our traditional, religious and local leaders hand selected by the government. Other 

Papuans, like Chief Tom Beanal and Mr. Willie Mandowen, were 

detained by the military until my office interceded. U.S. Ambassador Cameron Hume and I also had to make our way through a 

military barricade because Indonesian military forces, TNI, had 

blocked Papuans from meeting our delegation. For the record, I am 

submitting photos showing the excessive presence of military 

forces. 

In Manokwari, the military presence was even worse. Prior to my 

arrival in Manokwari, I was told that I would be meeting with the 

Governor, only to learn upon my arrival that he was in China and 

had been there for the past 5 days. Ten minutes later, I was put 

on a plane while the TNI, in full riot gear, forcibly kept the 

Papuans from meaningful dialogue with our delegation. 

At this time, I would like to share with my colleagues some videotape of my visit 3 years ago. But before showing this—hold it—

I want to give an opportunity to the members of our Papuan delegation. I think they have a song that they would like to sing for 

our audience. Gentlemen, please be patient with us. These people 

traveled all the way from Indonesia, so the least that we could do 

is to give them the courtesy of time to share some of their culture. 

I told them to make sure the song is melodious and meaningful and 

4

good for everybody to hear. You can come here in the front. Come 

right up here in the front row here. 

[Song performed in hearing room.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. I wanted to share 

with our government witnesses and my colleagues a little video 

that was taken on my visit to West Papua. And please go ahead. 

[Video shown.] 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. That was my 10 minute experience in 

Manokwari. After this experience and upon my return to Washington, I wrote to President SBY expressing my disappointment. 

But Jakarta never responded to my letter 3 years ago. And in 

March, 2 years ago, Chairman Don Payne of the Foreign Affairs 

Subcommittee on Africa and World Health joined me in sending 

another letter to President SBY which expressed our deep concern 

about Indonesia’s misuse of military force. We included photographs and a DVD of my experience while in Biak and Manokwari. 

Again, Jakarta never bothered to reply to our letters. 

Two years ago in March, Chairman Payne and I also wrote to 

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and included a copy of our 

letter to President SBY, as well as the DVD and photographs. Despite the serious concerns we raised about Indonesia’s failure to 

live up to its promises to allow Members of Congress access to 

Jayapura and our request to restrict funding to train Indonesia’s 

military forces, his reply in April was trite and indifferent, as if 

West Papua was of no consequence to our national agenda. He concluded his letter by erroneously stating, ‘‘TNI performance on 

human rights has improved dramatically.’’ Copies of these letters 

as well as the photographs and DVD are included for the record. 

Copies of our materials which we sent in March 2 years ago to 

the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Senate Committee on 

Foreign Relations and House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on State and Foreign Operations and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense and the Congressional Black 

Caucus are also included for the record. 

In March 5 years ago, Chairman Payne and I wrote to Secretary 

General Kofi Annan asking for a review of the United Nations’ conduct in West Papua. Thirty five other Members of Congress from 

the Congressional Black Caucus signed the joint letter, which I am 

also submitting that letter for the record. 

This year, Chairman Payne and I once more have spearheaded 

an effort calling upon this administration and President Obama to 

deal fairly with the people of West Papua and to meet with the 

Team of 100 indigenous Papuan leaders during his upcoming visit, 

hopefully in November of this year, to Indonesia. Although our letter of June 9 of this year was signed by 50 members of the U.S. 

Congress, the U.S. Department of State could not be bothered to 

send us a thoughtful reply. Instead, we received a dismissive letter 

in August signed by the Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, 

rather than by the U.S. Secretary of State, which sends a clear signal that this administration may not be any different from any 

other in its response to addressing our grave concerns about West 

Papua. As a matter of record, I am also including these documents 

as part of the record. 

5

Also, I am including a video that, due to its sensitive subject 

matter I cannot and will not show. The video depicts a violent murder of a Papuan citizen who was killed, and I hate to use the 

word—gutted—by a member of the Indonesian special force corps, 

or Brigade Mobile, while the victim was still alive and pleading for 

someone to kill him in order to put him out of his misery. This isn’t 

the only murder. The late Papuan leader Theys Hiyo Eluay was 

also savagely murdered, and the list of lives lost goes on and on. 

As the chairman of this subcommittee, I believe I have been very 

patient. Yes, I realize the importance of the U.S.-Indonesia relationship. Indonesia is the most populous Muslim nation in the 

world, with some 224 million people, and the U.S. has a strong interest in reaching out to the Islamic and Muslim world. But our 

own struggle against Islamic militancy should not come at the expense of the pain and killings and suffering of the people of West 

Papua. This is not the America that I know of. We can and must 

do better. In his statement before the United Nations against 

apartheid, Nelson Mandela said, and I quote, ‘‘It will forever remain an accusation and challenge to all men and women of conscience that it took so long as it has before all of us stood up and 

to say enough is enough.’’ This is how I honestly feel about the situation in West Papua. It is my sincere hope that today’s hearing 

will help us find the way forward. 

So far, Indonesia has failed miserably to implement special autonomy, and as a result, there is a sense of growing frustration 

among the Papuans, and rightfully so. I said years ago, and this 

has always been my premise in saying to my friends in Indonesia, 

since Indonesia has done such a lousy job in the treatment of the 

West Papuans, you might as well give them their independence. 

According to CRS, and I quote,

‘‘Migration by non-Melanesian Indonesians from elsewhere in 

the nation appears to be a critical part of the mounting tensions. By some accounts, Melanesian Papuans will be in the 

minority in their own homeland by the year 2015.’’

There is so much more I want to say about the commercial exploitation of West Papua’s renowned mineral wealth, which includes vast reserves of gold and copper and nickel and oil and gas, 

and yes, an American company, Freeport Mining Company, which 

has played a shameful role in this exploitation. I will address these 

issues in my questioning of our witnesses. 

In conclusion, I want to thank Edmund McWilliams, a retired 

U.S. Senior Foreign Service Officer of the State Department, who 

has been a long-time advocate for the people of West Papua. Mr. 

McWilliams was unable to be with us today, but he has submitted 

testimony for the record that will be included in today’s hearing. 

I also want to welcome our Papuan leaders who have flown at 

considerable expense to testify before this subcommittee. I presume 

none flew at the expense of the Indonesian Government, but we 

will find out during these proceedings. Most Papuan leaders who 

are with us today have lived the struggle. Whatever the differences 

and whatever the situations, some have returned home after being 

refugees or in asylum in other countries, returned home and reclaimed Indonesian citizenship. I am unclear as to their role in the 

6

struggle that they have given up and never fully lived. I hope they 

will provide an explanation at this hearing. 

And now I recognize my good friend, Congressman Inglis from 

South Carolina for his opening statement, if he has one. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega follows:]


58430i-1.eps
7


58430i-2.eps
8


58430i-3.eps
9


58430i-4.eps
10

Mr. INGLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of things. 

One is, thank you to those that performed. That was a treat to 

come here and hear that. And what telling video there that the 

chairman presented. And his opening statement, I think, shows the 

value of Members of Congress traveling to places like you traveled 

to. You know, I have never been to Indonesia, and really don’t have 

firsthand knowledge of these facts. But the chairman went there, 

obviously at some risk to himself, and to do so is to gain firsthand 

knowledge of the situation. And I wish that more Americans who 

are in the mood right now of saying there is no need to do any of 

that could have seen that video and heard what you said, Mr. 

Chairman, because I think they might change their mind and realize how important it is for the Foreign Affairs Committee especially, and other committees as well, to be engaged in that kind of 

firsthand fact finding because you are able now to run a very 

knowledgeable hearing. 

So I should just defer to you and say thank you for essentially 

educating the rest of us by the video and the opening statement. 

And appreciate the opportunity to be here. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

And one of the things that I think our friends from West Papua, 

Indonesia, as I tried to inform them, one of the unique features of 

American democracy is that Congress is a co-equal branch with the 

executive branch of government. Separation of powers, and under 

our constitutional privileges, we have the power to conduct oversight hearings as a way to counterbalance whatever activities or 

whatever it is that the President, in his honest opinion, is doing 

the right thing for the American people and for our Government 

and again, I thank the gentleman for his kind comments. 

And by the way, I was a little concerned, but I think basically 

what I wanted to share with my colleagues is that the people just 

simply want to meet and to express their concerns on some of the 

issues that have been lying low or under the table and not been 

brought out for public scrutiny. And this is something that people 

have asked me: ‘‘Well, why are you so interested in West Papua? 

You are not even Papuan.’’ I say, ‘‘That is true. But over 100 years 

ago, many of my relatives and people from Samoa were missionaries who went to Papua and shared Christianity as a religion with 

many of the Papuan people. And one of my relatives served as a 

pastor, a missionary there for some 17 years, and three of his children are buried there.’’ So I guess that is the kinship with the people of West Papua. 

And I have always wondered, who were the so-called experts who 

divided our Pacific people, saying that Micronesians are people 

from small islands, because that is what the word, Micronesia, refers to; and Polynesians are from many islands. And then they give 

an ethnic description to our brothers and sisters from Melanesia 

because they are Black. That kind of has a little tinge of racism. 


58430i-5.eps
11

And I don’t know who the idiot was, whether he was an anthropologist or archeologist who gave this description to the peoples of 

the Pacific. 

So with that, my good friend, the gentleman, I thank you. The 

gentlelady from California for her opening statement. 

Ms. WATSON. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very 

timely hearing to look at the situation in Papua. And I join you in 

your concerns regarding the Government of Indonesia. A Papuan 

journalist was recently found dead with signs of torture, reports of 

political repression, and allegations of military campaigns; disseminating indigenous communities. The State Department report on 

Indonesia released this year notes that although Indonesia generally respected the rights of its citizens, there have been problems 

this year citing killings by security forces. Though most agree that 

the crimes have been committed against the indigenous population, 

there is less agreement that it has been done in a deliberate and 

systematic way by the government in Jakarta. It is important to 

understand the intent and the method of the recent actions of the 

government. However, tensions are on the rise and separatist sentiments are growing. 

The Papuan people assemblies just voted against autonomy status because they do not feel that it is serving the people. In migration is also causing angst in the native population, as they are rapidly becoming the minority in their own homeland. It is important 

that we address this growing unrest in West Papua. 

The United States has already been documented going against 

the will of the people. If you recall, declassified documents released 

in 2004 indicated that the U.S. supported Indonesia’s takeover of 

Papua in the lead up to the 1969 Act of Free Choice, even as it was 

understood that such a move was likely unpopular to the Papuans. 

As this administration struggles to find a position on the issue, I 

hope it will consider the rights and the abuse suffered by the people of West Papua. Indonesia is a vital nation in the fight against 

Islamic extremists, and it is a past home of our current President, 

Barack Obama. I look forward to hearing the administration’s position and their action plan on this most dire situation. So I thank 

you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the remainder of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson follows:]

12


58430j-1.eps
13

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank the gentlelady for her statement. 

And at this time, I would like to introduce our two witnesses representing the administration. The first gentleman is Mr. Joseph 

Yun, who is currently the Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs in the U.S. Department of 

State, responsible primarily for relations with Southeast Asia and 

the ASEAN countries. He previously held positions as Director of 

the office of Maritime Southeast Asia in the Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs in the Department of State. He was also Minister-Counselor for political affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Korea. 

Mr. Yun’s other overseas postings include Thailand, France, Indonesia and Hong Kong. 

Mr. Yun joined the Foreign Service in 1985. He is a career member of the senior Foreign Service. And before joining the Foreign 

Service, he was a senior economist for Data Resources, Incorporated, in Massachusetts. Mr. Yun holds degrees from the London 

School of Economics and the University of Wales. I am very, very 

happy that he is able to come this afternoon to testify. 

Our other witness today is Secretary Robert Scher. He is the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Defense for South and Southeast 

Asia. In this capacity, Mr. Scher serves as the principal advisor to 

senior leadership within the Department of Defense for all policy 

matters pertaining to strategies and plans including interagency 

issues for international strategy development and implementation. 

Mr. Scher’s area of responsibility includes bilateral security relations with India and all other South Asian countries, and also the 

Pacific Island nations. 

Tremendous history. He has worked for some 15 years with the 

Departments of Defense and State and has held numerous posts 

covering Asian security and defense policy. 

Mr. Scher received his Bachelor of Arts degree from Swarthmore 

College with high honors, and a Master of International Relations 

from Columbia University’s School of International Public Affairs. 

He was awarded the DuPont International Affairs fellowship. 

And gentlemen, again, I really want to thank both of you for taking the time from your busy schedules to testify before this subcommittee. And I would like to now give you the opportunity to 

make your statements. Secretary Yun. 


58430j-2.eps
14

STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH Y. YUN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. YUN. Chairman Faleomavaega, members of the subcommittee, thank you for holding this important hearing. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you put the mic closer to you so that 

you can be heard better? 

Mr. YUN. Thank you for holding this important hearing today 

and asking me to testify on the situation in Papua. With your permission, I would like to make brief remarks and submit a longer 

statement for the record. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Without objection, both of the gentlemen’s 

statements will be made part of the record. And if you have any 

extraneous materials you want to add to your statements, it will 

be done. 

Mr. YUN. Thank you. Developments in Papua are closely monitored and followed by the Department of State, and these represent an important aspect of our overall relations with Indonesia. 

The United States recognizes and respects the territorial integrity 

of Indonesia within its concurrent borders and does not support or 

condone separatism in Papua or in any other part of the country. 

At the same time, we strongly support respect for universal human 

rights within Indonesia, including the right of peaceful assembly, 

free expression of political views and fair and non-discriminatory 

treatment of ethnic Papuans within Indonesia. 

Within this context we have consistently encouraged the Indonesian Government to work with the indigenous Papuan population to address their grievances, resolve conflicts peacefully, and 

support development and good governance in the Papuan provinces. The administration believes the full implementation of the 

2001 special autonomy law for Papua which emerged as part of Indonesia’s democratic transition, would help resolve long-standing 

grievances. We continue to encourage the Indonesian Government 

to work with Papuan authorities to discuss ways to empower 

Papuans and further implement the special autonomy provisions 

which grant greater authority to Papuans to administer their own 

affairs. 

Advancing human rights is one of our primary foreign policy objectives, not only in Indonesia, but throughout the world. We want 

to see the right of peaceful, free expression of political views and 

freedom of association observed throughout the world, including in 

Papua. 

We monitor allegations of human rights violations in Papua and 

West Papua and we report on them in our annual Country Report 

on Human Rights. With the growth of democracy over the past decade in Indonesia, there has been substantial improvement in respect for human rights, although there remain credible concerns 

about human rights violations. The improvement includes Papua, 

although, as our annual reporting has documented, there continues 

to be some credible allegations of abuse. We regularly engage the 

Government of Indonesia on the importance of respect for human 

rights by security forces, and we continue to emphasize our strong 

support for an open and transparent legal system to look into any 

claims of excessive use of force. 

15

It is critical that independent and objective observers have unrestricted access to Papua in order to monitor development. At 

present, Indonesian journalists, NGOs and Indonesian citizens may 

travel freely to Papua and West Papua. However, the Indonesian 

Government requires that foreign journalists, NGOs, diplomats and 

parliamentarians obtain permission to visit Papua. We continue to 

encourage the Indonesian Government to give these groups, including the International Committee of the Red Cross, full and unfettered access to Papua and West Papua. 

There are several factors which have contributed to tensions in 

Papua. One is the demographic shifts. Migration from other parts 

of Indonesia has increased the number of non-Papuan residents to 

about 40 percent of the current population in Papua and West 

Papua. The total population of both provinces is 2.4 million, of 

which 900,000 are migrants. Past government-sponsored 

transmigration programs which moved households from more 

densely populated areas to less populated regions accounts for part 

of the influx. 

The majority of the population shift has resulted from natural 

migration trends from Indonesia’s large population centers to 

Papua where there is relatively low population density. Some 

Papuans have voiced concerns that the migrants have interfered 

with their traditional ways of life, land usage, and economic opportunities. 

Another factor is lack of economic development. Although the region is rich in natural resources, including gold, copper, natural gas 

and timber, Papua lags behind other parts of Indonesia in some 

key development indicators. Poverty is widespread is Papua, and 

Papua has the lowest level of adult literacy in Indonesia. The region also has a disproportionately high number of HIV/AIDS cases 

compared to the rest of Indonesia, and high rates of infant and maternal mortality. 

Another factor I would like to mention is that the special autonomy law of 2001 has not been fully implemented in Papua. Implementation has been delayed due to lack of implementing regulations. In addition, the provincial governments have lacked the capacity to take on certain key responsibilities in some central government ministries, and some central government ministries have 

yet to cede their authorities. Although full implementation of special autonomy has not yet been realized, Indonesian Government 

officials point to increased funding to Papua which has totaled 27 

trillion rupiah, or approximately 3 billion U.S. dollars in the past 

9 years. This is a higher per capita than any other area in Indonesia. 

In terms of U.S. assistance, the United States is working in partnership with Government of Indonesia and the provincial Government of Papua and West Papua to find ways to address the key development challenges of Papua, including good governance, health, 

education and environment protection. USAID conducts various 

programs in Papua targeting economic growth, democratic governance, health, environment and education. These programs total 

$11.6 million, or 7 percent of the USAID’s budget for Indonesia for 

Fiscal Year 2010. 

16

In addition to USAID programs, the Department of State also 

brings Papuans to the U.S. for thematic engagement on issues like 

resource distribution. Our Fulbright programs had over 22 grantees from Papua. We also partner with the private sector to effectively leverage resources. For example, in public private partnership, the Fulbright Freeport scholarship program has funded 18 individuals from Papua to study in the United States. 

Embassy Jakarta maintains a vigorous schedule of engagement 

in Papua and West Papua, and U.S. mission officers routinely travel to provinces. I understand that Ambassador Marciel, who arrived 

at post recently, plans to travel to Papua in October. 

In closing, I would like to emphasize that Papua plays an important role in our sustained engagement with the Government of Indonesia. While Indonesia’s overall human rights situation has improved along with the country’s rapid democratic development, we 

are concerned by allegations of human rights violations in Papua 

and continuously monitor the situation there. We urge increased 

dialogue between the central government and Papuan leaders and 

the full implementation of the special autonomy law. We will continue to provide assistance to build a strong economic and social 

foundation in Papua. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to 

testify before you today. I am pleased to answer any questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yun follows:]

17


58430a-1.eps
18


58430a-2.eps
19


58430a-3.eps
20


58430a-4.eps
21

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you Mr. Secretary. Secretary Scher. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT SCHER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA, 

ASIAN AND PACIFIC SECURITY AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Mr. SCHER. Thank you, Chairman Faleomavaega and members of 

the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to appear before you 

today to provide testimony on the Indonesian military’s activities 

in Papua and West Papua. This issue is important to our relationship with Indonesia and one that we in the Department of Defense 

pay close attention to. I look forward to sustaining a dialogue with 

you on these and other important issues concerning Indonesia. 

As noted, I have submitted testimony for the record so will simply summarize that testimony now. Also, as you noted, it is important to see the situation in Papua and West Papua in the context 

of our overall relationship with Indonesia. Indonesia is a strategically important country to the United States for several reasons. It 

is the fourth most populous country on the planet. It is home to 

more Muslims than any other country in the world, and stretches 


58430a-5.eps
22

across key maritime transit routes that connect the Middle East to 

East Asia. 

Since the fall of Suharto more than 10 years ago, Indonesia has 

also taken its place as the world’s third largest democracy. In that 

short time, Indonesia has made great advancements in consolidating its democracy. 

During the past decade, the Indonesian Armed Forces, or TNI, 

have undertaken several critical institutional reforms to help 

achieve Indonesia’s goal of establishing greater respect for human 

rights, accountability and civilian control over the military. Among 

these reforms are formally removing the military from political affairs, establishing a clear delineation between the responsibilities 

of the civilian police forces and the TNI, and enhancing the authority of the civilian minister of defense. 

While the United States has encouraged and applauds such reforms, it is important to note that the Government of Indonesia undertook them of its own volition. Indonesia’s civilian and military 

leadership are both deeply committed to the goal of 

professionalization and continue to take significant steps to ensure 

that TNI is a force that understands the role of a responsible military in a democratic system. The TNI has made great strides in institutionalizing human rights training for its forces, but also knows 

that it has further to go. Recent steps in this effort include the inclusion of human rights seminars in military schooling, working 

with respected international institutions, such as the Norwegian 

Center for Human Rights and instituting refresher training prior 

to deployments. Respect for human rights is now a core feature of 

TNI doctrine, and all deployed soldiers are required to carry a 

booklet explaining the proper treatment of non combatants. Of 

course, the Department takes seriously any allegations of human 

rights abuses committed by Indonesian security forces no matter 

where they occur. When we hear of specific abuse allegations, the 

United States Government follows up on them through the appropriate State Department channels. 

We recognize that there have been allegations of human rights 

abuses in Papua and West Papua. The Department of Defense 

takes these allegations very seriously, as we believe respect for 

human rights is a core mission of all responsible security forces. 

However, we have not yet seen any evidence to suggest that the 

incidents under discussion are part of a deliberate or systematic 

campaign by the TNI or Government of Indonesia. Moreover, the 

Government of Indonesia has stated that there are no ongoing military combat operations in Papua or West Papua. 

While Indonesian security forces do not have a perfect record 

over the past years, their reforms are continuing and moving in the 

right direction. Earlier this year, the Indonesian Defense Minister 

issued a public statement addressing Indonesia’s military’s commitment to protecting human rights, explaining that reforms are in 

place to prevent future abuses, and expressing the TNIs commitment to holding human rights violators accountable. 

Secretary Gates was recently in Jakarta and said,

‘‘My view is that, particularly if people are making an effort to 

make progress, that recognizing that effort and working with 

23

them further will produce greater gains in human rights for 

people.’’

Put in other words, DoD simply believes that it is important to 

continue engagement with the TNI, in part, to continue to emphasize the importance of these reforms and the importance of continuing to make progress on these issues. We make clear that respect for human rights is an essential component of professional 

military behavior, and these issues are raised in every formal 

meeting I have with my Indonesian counterparts as recently as last 

week. Therefore, the Department and the U.S. Government will 

continue to treat any allegations of abuse with great seriousness. 

But together with our State Department colleagues, we will continue to closely monitor allegations of human rights abuses and 

work with the TNI and Indonesian Ministry of Defense toward appropriate investigation and accountability. 

Thank you for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Scher follows:]

24


58430b-1.eps
25


58430b-2.eps
26


58430b-3.eps
27


58430b-4.eps
28


58430b-5.eps
29


58430b-6.eps
30

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very. Appreciate very much your 

statements. And we do have some questions. Secretary Yun, as you 

know, I met with President Megawati when she visited here in 

Washington, DC, and I was very hopeful and very happy to learn 

that the Indonesian Parliament had passed a law to provide special 

autonomy for the West Papuans. In fact, she even invited me to 

come to West Papua and to dialogue and to meet with the government leaders there. Well, this was 2001. And as I said in my statement earlier, this is one of the concerns that I have because I felt 

that special autonomy was the consensus among the Papuan leaders, and that just a sense of some respectability as to their basic 

fundamental rights allowed an opportunity for them to build their 

infrastructure, better roads, hospitals, health care centers, whatever it is that is needed. 

And also, to establish a similar relationship as I recall in my 

meeting with President SBY, he was very excited and very happy 

with the fact that they were successful after 30 years of negotiations with the Aceh situation and with the implementation of a 

special autonomy law that was made for the Aceh people. And he 

felt that perhaps a similar thing could also be done for the people 

of West Papua. And I was very excited about that. 

Well, Mr. Secretary, this is 9 years later now. And as you said, 

changes have been made in the special autonomy law. So I am just 

curious. What do you see as the basis—is this the current policy 

of the Indonesian Government to implement the 2001 special autonomy law? Are we in for another discussion or dialogue in terms 

of what is to be done with the people of Papua? 

Mr. YUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very much agree with you. 

If the 2001 special autonomy law can be fully implemented, we do 

believe that a lot of frustration currently felt by Papuans will decrease. It has been slow in coming and I think even this year, there 

have been a couple of incidents, Puncak Jaya is one as well as others that we believe is caused by Papuans feeling that special provisions such as cultural protection and special positions. For example, there was strong demand that at bupati level, which is the 

county chief level, that they should be Papuans rather than migrants. I think those grievances are very much felt, and if the Indonesian Government in Jakarta, the central government, can speed 

up the implementation of special autonomy law, a lot of those 

grievances will, I wouldn’t say disappear, but will be somewhat 

lessened. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is there a special agency or official, specifically assigned by the President to address the issues of West Papua 

and the current relationship? This is where I am a little fuzzy. I 

understand that some minister of social welfare or something was 

being assigned that task, but I am not sure if that is true. 

Mr. YUN. As you know, the discussions take place between Papuan-elected officials. The two Governors in Papua are elected and 

they are Papuans, as well as deputy governors. And it is my understanding all of the mayors and the county chiefs are also Papuans. 

As well, they also have a separate body which represents the cultural protection as well as a consultative side of Papuan society, 

and they are represented in Jakarta and I understand that they 

travel to Jakarta to consult with the Parliament there. And I am 

31

not quite sure who in Indonesia is the point-person for making sure 

that special autonomy legislation is fully implemented. I am not 

sure there is one honestly. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you provide for the record who this is? 

Because I am at a loss myself in terms of understanding what it 

is. 

Mr. YUN. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. JOSEPH Y. YUN TO QUESTION ASKED

DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA

The Ministry of Home Affairs is formally tasked with overseeing Special Autonomy for Papua. The Office of the President takes an active interest in Papua, as 

do a number of other ministries within the Indonesian government.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I know you mentioned in your statement 

that it always has been the policy of our Government to respect the 

territorial integrity of another country, no different than Indonesia 

not telling the United States what to do in dealing with Native 

Americans, for example. I am fully aware and understand that situation. And it has been a little difficult too in that sense. So we 

use that as the basis for saying that we can’t really do any more 

other than engage Indonesia if it feels like talking to us or helping 

with the needs of the Papuans. Otherwise, is there really anything 

more that that we can do? 

Mr. YUN. Last week, for example, we had, as you know, the 

launch of a Joint Commission with Indonesia. And under this Joint 

Commission, which was launched by Indonesian Foreign Minister 

Natalegawa and Secretary Clinton, we did create six working 

groups. And one of the working groups dealt with democracy and 

civil society. And during those working group meetings, we did 

have a discussion and those discussions centered around how 

maybe we can get more access in Papua, especially the international NGOs such as the International Committee of the Red 

Cross. 

And so I think our immediate task is really getting through a 

dialogue, a serious dialogue with the Indonesian side so that we 

make some progress and we discuss especially the allegations of 

human rights that are out there. And I am sure the next panel will 

discuss them. And because honestly, the U.S. Government cannot 

send an investigation team, of course, whenever there is an allegation, but we do want to discuss them and see whether they are serious and consult with the international community as well as civil 

society. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am very much aware of the fact that sometimes issues where countries express their sovereignty, that matters are considered internal matters, and is none of the business 

of other countries trying to tell Indonesia what to do, how they 

want to do things. And I just want to make the record clear that 

this is not the intent of this hearing, nor is it the intent of this 

hearing just to talk about human rights violations. As I said, years 

ago, and I still firmly believe, if we are trying to work together 

with the government to implement the provisions of the special autonomy law, because that was the consensus that I got years ago 

32

from the Papuan community and their leaders, that they are willing to do this. 

But somehow, as you had stated, there just has not been a plan 

put forward by Jakarta saying how exactly they will implement the 

provisions of the special autonomy law. And I think this is where 

we seem to have an impasse either because of the difficulties or because they just don’t feel like it. 

I kind of like to hope in good faith and wish that the Indonesian 

Government is really sincere. Let me say this for the record, I sincerely believe that President SBY really wants to reach out and 

help the people of Papua. I also fully understand that he faces constraint. A lot of pressure is coming from other sectors of the Indonesian community that puts him in a very difficult situation, as 

you mentioned. So I am very much aware of that. But I just want 

to note that, and wanted to know in our administration, as we are 

advocating more openness by the Indonesian Government, to see 

what is being done to give assistance to the Papuan people. I have 

got a couple more questions, but I want to give this opportunity to 

my colleague from California for her line of questions. 

Ms. WATSON. I just want to follow up, Mr. Chairman. 

In your observation of what is going on, and we recognize the 

sovereignty, as has been mentioned, and what our role is, but do 

you feel that the Papuans are under threat in their own land? Does 

it seem like they are becoming a minority, or are they already a 

minority in their own land? Your observations. 

Mr. YUN. My observation is that they are not yet a minority. I 

think the numbers show that it is at about 60/40 at the moment; 

60 Papuans, as opposed to 40 migrants. However, clearly, if this 

trend continues, they will be a minority and probably in quite a 

short amount of time. 

I think that is one of the greatest frustrations among Papuans, 

is the demographic shifts. The special autonomy law does create 

some protection for Papuans, a lot of protection for Papuans, and 

this is why it is important to implement those laws. 

Ms. WATSON. Could the motivation be the wealth of natural resources there in Indonesia? 

Mr. YUN. I don’t think it is necessarily. In my view, it is not only 

about dividing the economic pie. I think there is a lot more than 

that. There are cultural reasons, and, as the chairman indicated, 

deep-rooted historical reasons. 

In fact, I think, in terms of economic resources transferred, as I 

mentioned in my testimony, it has been substantial. But it is also 

about the capacity to use those economic resources, and I think it 

is also about the political position each group will hold. 

So I think the growing frustration—I mean, we do have a trend, 

I believe, where in fact, as Bob mentioned here, there has been less 

and less human rights violation incidents. However, that hasn’t 

been accompanied by Papuans themselves feeling less frustrated. 

So we do have those two trends, which are somewhat contradictory. 

And I think it has to do with migration, with the economy in comparison with the rest of Indonesia falling behind. 

So, it is a complicated story. And frustration is also felt in Jakarta by the Indonesians, and I am sure Chairman Faleomavaega 

has heard that, which is they have given them at least what they 

33

thought was a lot of leeway. They are governed by Papuans. The 

two Governors—they have considerable power—are Papuans. The 

deputy governors are Papuans. The county chiefs and mayors are 

Papuans. Yet it doesn’t seem to have resolved the basic underlying 

grievance. 

Ms. WATSON. I was wondering how involved will the U.N. be if 

the conditions continue as they are now? 

Mr. Scher, maybe you want to comment? 

Mr. SCHER. You can go ahead. 

Mr. YUN. Thank you, Bob. 

It is very much an internal issue, and I am sure we all appreciate that. It is an internal issue. It is a domestic political issue. 

But having said that, of course, we do, everyone, the international 

community has an interest in good governance, in meeting the commitment of Indonesia toward the international community. 

And I would say that we have stressed this over and over again: 

There has been a democratic transition in Indonesia, President 

SBY has been reelected by an enormous majority, and there is a 

strong civil society in Indonesia, as well as a healthy Parliament. 

So it is really for them to work this through. 

And I think, obviously, you know, the U.N. can help as well as 

international organizations. I am sure you will see in the next 

panel, you know, for example, we do have Human Rights Watch, 

who have personnel out there in Jakarta, especially, and they will 

give us a good report on what is going on. 

So in this day where communication is quick, we are going to 

learn and we are going to know what is going on. So however basically it is a domestic Indonesian issue, and I do believe, given the 

democratic transition, we will make improvements. 

Ms. WATSON. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

Secretary Yun, you mentioned that one cause of the delays in 

giving provincial governments the opportunity to develop was the 

fact that for a 9-year period, Jakarta gave some 3 billion U.S. dollars as part of the infrastructure development, which is high on a 

per capita basis compared to other provinces. And so other provinces within Indonesia express disappointment over why West 

Papua was given all that money. Well, it also happens to be that 

the largest corporate taxpayer to Jakarta is the American Freeport 

Gold Mining Operation, which operates right now in West Papua. 

So, by all means, all the mineral resources coming from West 

Papua, I think it right that they should be getting some of that 

money back since these are their resources. 

But I do want to give credit where credit is due, there is no question. The last time I met President Suharto, he was very ill, and 

on the eve of finally giving up his presidency. Elections were then 

conducted, and I do believe in giving credit where credit is due. Indonesia has come a long way. 

The two national elections of President SBY have demonstrated 

that a major Muslim country is committed to democracy and the 

principle of the ballot box in determining leadership. I am very 

much aware of that. 

But at the same time, I do want to say that maybe we are not 

doing enough to give assistance to Indonesia, or is it because of the 

34

problems internally within Indonesia that has made the process 

very slow in implementing the autonomy act? My point is, if it was 

possible to implement the special autonomy for Aceh, why couldn’t 

they do the same for West Papua? Is it the language? Culture? 

There are no ethnic ties, nationality, culturally, between the Javanese people of Indonesia with those of Papua. I think that is a bare 

fact that we have to admit. 

But I am curious and wanted to know from both of you, what is 

the administration’s position in terms of dealing with West Papua? 

We can all talk about, Oh, we sent a cablegram. We have talked 

to the people there, our counterparts through our U.S. Embassy, 

and all of that. 

Mr. Secretary, it has been 9 years and I am still waiting. Some 

say, ‘‘Well, why are you in a rush, Eni?’’ You know, it has been 

going on now for 60 years, and there is still not much opening in 

terms of giving the people of West Papua their basic fundamental 

rights. I think that is basically in my discussions with the leaders 

of Papua; just treat us with decency. Give us the right to pursue—

and at the same time be part of the overall bigger picture in terms 

of their involvement in being made part of the national government 

in Jakarta. 

So that is basically what we are trying to pursue here. I wanted 

to ask Secretary Scher a little question here. Where do our strategic and military interests come into play in dealing with Indonesia? 

Mr. SCHER. We see the strategic and military interest as part of 

the broader picture of interests of Indonesia. It is difficult I think 

to divide all of them. I obviously spoke about some of the broader 

interests that we have in strategic interests. 

But as a very important part, we play a supporting role in the 

Department of Defense for the overall foreign policy, and so we use 

the tools we have at our disposal to help build further U.S. policy 

to serve our interests and help build partner capacity in countries 

that share common interests. 

So I am not one to be able to say how we rank different pieces, 

but it is obviously a very important piece, and it is one that we 

think we bring valuable tools to achieve our overall U.S. objectives 

and goals. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Secretary Yun, you indicated that journalists do travel freely to Papua and West Papua. I want to share my 

own experience. I was supposed to go there for 3 days, and I ended 

up with 2 hours and 10 minutes. 

Mr. YUN. I am sorry, sir, I think that has to be corrected. I said 

Indonesians can travel freely to Papua, Indonesian journalists and 

others. But foreign journalists, diplomats and overseas civil society, 

NGOs, they have to get permission before they can travel to Papua. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I think the question now before us is, 

where do we go from here? It is my understanding that there have 

been some rumblings in some of the sectors of the Papuan community that special autonomy has failed and they want something 

else. Are you aware of that? 

Mr. YUN. Yes, sir. 

35

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Do you believe that our policies should include continuing to work with Indonesia in implementing special 

autonomy? 

Mr. YUN. Yes, I believe that. I think we need to continue to work 

with the Indonesian Government and work with the international 

community. I think those two are crucial. The Indonesian Government, I believe, as it has happened over the past decade, as civil 

society and as democracy takes even firmer root, I do think there 

will be a tendency, an increasing tendency, to look at Papua as 

what it is, which is part of Indonesia, and work toward that, taking 

into account Papuan culture, history. 

A lot of issues that have been disappointing have to do with lack 

of implementation of the special autonomy law rather than the special autonomy law itself. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In our own experience in dealing with colonialism, we fought against the most powerful country in the world 

at that time during the Revolution, and we defeated the mighty 

British Empire. 

As a matter of principle, as we all know, Indonesia was a colony 

of the Dutch and so was West Papua. And when Indonesia became 

independent, West Papua was made part of Indonesia, when, in 

fact, culturally, historically, in every way, there is just no connection whatsoever between the Papuan people and the Indonesian 

people. 

So how do we balance it? How do we say that it is okay that 

Papua, a former colony, is taken over by another former colony? 

Justifies the fact that a better consideration be given to the Papuan people than just simply say, You are part of Indonesia, no ifs, 

ands or buts, and that is it. 

Mr. YUN. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether that was a question. I mean, I would fully agree with you; history is full of oddities. And for us now to go back and correct that is not a possible 

task. We are what we have today, and we have to work with what 

we have today, and this is the reality. 

I do sympathize that there is tremendous ethnic-cultural division 

in these areas, let alone in Papua, within Indonesia itself. 

So we do have to recognize the integrity of Indonesia, its territorial integrity, but that does not mean that we should ignore history. But, at the same time, we cannot correct history. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, with all due respect, Mr. Secretary, 

South Africa comes to my mind, that apartheid was practiced in 

the worst way. Black people who held the majority in population 

of South Africa were treated almost like animals, as far as I am 

concerned. And year after year after year, even pleading with the 

European countries and even with our own Government, as a matter of principle, is it right that apartheid was practiced the way it 

was done in South Africa, where thousands and thousands of people were killed? There is no question there was bloodshed. 

So you are saying it is okay to disregard the past, just as it was 

in the struggles of Mr. Nelson Mandela and other Black leaders 

dealing with the South African apartheid issue, where there was 

a lot of resistance. 

As a matter of principle, is it proper for Black people, who were 

the vast majority in the country, to be treated as less than human, 

36

with all the civil rights and everything not even part of it? But history then kind of put itself forward in saying it is not right. 

What I am suggesting here, and I am not trying to plead that 

Indonesia work now toward granting independence for Papua. 

What I am asking is, are they giving proper treatment? Are they 

respecting the right of the Papuan people to be part of the national 

government and all of that? 

Do you feel that change will be forthcoming, or are we just going 

to continue another 10 years, as I have been waiting for the last 

9 years for special autonomy and nothing happened? 

Mr. YUN. Mr. Chairman, I do agree with you that tremendous 

improvements can be made in the situation in Papua, but I don’t 

think I would agree that the situation in Papua in any way resembles the situation in South Africa during the height of apartheid. 

I don’t think I would agree to that. 

Am I optimistic that the situation will be improving or continue 

to improve? I think that depends on the route of democracy and 

whether freely elected governments and all the institutions that go 

with such governments, such as law and order and accountability 

and parliamentary democracy and also accountability of regional 

governments. If they can go together, then I am very optimistic 

that the situation in Papua will improve. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Secretary Scher? 

Mr. SCHER. Certainly, I defer to Deputy Assistant Yun. 

I would just say I think it is a constant—it is a struggle for much 

of the Government of Indonesia deal with the wide range of heterogeneous populations that exist within the incredibly large archipelago, and certainly, they are doing it better in some places than 

others. And clearly West Papua and Papua I think is a place where 

there is need for improvement in how they are addressing this. 

But I do think that it is worthwhile to note that the success of 

this experiment, of being able to include a wide variety of different 

ethnic, linguistic groups into a country, is one that we have done 

very well with here in the United States, and I think that we 

should realize and hope and support any country that is trying to 

do the same thing under the democratic system that we see within 

Indonesia. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, gentleman, I deeply appreciate your 

statements and the dialogue. Do you have any further statements 

you want to add for the record? 

Mr. YUN. No. 

Mr. SCHER. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you very much. I appreciate your 

coming. 

For our next panel of witnesses, we need to set up the table 

there, if we could have our friends that are going to be testifying 

here. For our panel of witnesses we have this afternoon, I want to 

introduce our distinguished witnesses for the record. 

At my extreme left is Dr. Pieter Drooglever, who has a doctorate 

from Utrecht University in history. His doctoral dissertation explored the internal politics of the Dutch East Indies in the 1930s. 

As a staff member of the Institute of Netherlands History from 

1969 until 2006, his main project was editing a 21-volume collection of source materials on Dutch-Indonesian relations from 1945–

37

1963. This project was completed at the time of his retirement 4 

years ago. 

He also wrote a series of articles and other books on related subjects. His final study, his book on the Act of Free Choice in West 

Papua, was published in English last year, and it is expected the 

Indonesian language version will be coming out this year. He 

served on the board of several key institutions and committees promoting the study of Indonesia and the Netherlands. He also is a 

professor of history at Radboud University in Nijmegen. I hope I 

pronounced that correctly. 

Our next witness, oh, boy, they got the sequence mixed up here. 

We will work on Mr. Mote’s bio. It is not here. 

Our next witness will be Mr. Henkie Rumbewas. He worked with 

the United Nations in East Timor to investigate human rights 

abuses during the period of Indonesian administration. He is a refugee from Biak in the Papua province who witnessed the detention 

and torture of his father during the 1969 Act of Free Choice. Mr. 

Rumbewas is an Australian citizen who travels freely with delegations from Australian Protestant churches to his home to do humanitarian and educational work in rural areas. 

Mr. Nicholas Messet is here with us also. He has been the director of human resource development and general affairs for Sarmi 

Papua Asia Oil for 2 years now. He is deputy chairman of the Independent Group Supporting Special Autonomous Regions with the 

Republic of Indonesia Foundation in Jakarta and has been assistant moderator in the Papua Council Presidium for 10 years now. 

He is a pilot with Islands Nation Air in Port Moresby, as well as 

in Bougainville, Buka, Vanimo and Kimbe, Papua New Guinea. He 

is also a pilot with Air Vanuatu. He is a pilot with Air Niugini. He 

worked as a flying instructor for the Nation Aviation Space Academy. He worked with the Australian Broadcasting Commission and 

with the Public Works Department in Port Morseby. 

On his educational background, he trained with Piedmont in 

Greensborough, North Carolina, and Pan Am in Miami, Florida, for 

wide-body aircraft, B727s and 737s. Since 1988, he trained with 

American Flyers in Santa Monica. He trained with Nation Air Cooperation. He has a very distinguished record as a pilot and aviator 

for that reason. As a member of the foundation team, he witnessed 

Mr. Nicholas Jouwe reinstated as a full-fledged citizen of the Republic of Indonesia by Minister for Justice and Human Rights, His 

Excellency Patrialis Akbar, and the Minister Coordinating for Social Services. 

Mr. Messet has been a member of several delegations traveling 

all over the world, the United Nations, even here in the United 

States. Five years ago, he returned voluntarily to Indonesia after 

living in exile for some 36 years. As a result, he is now a full 

fledged citizen and a strong advocate of special autonomy status for 

the people of Papua. He is fluent in the Bahasa Indonesian, Dutch, 

English and Swedish languages. Boy, that is quite a deal there, Mr. 

Messet. 

Octovianus Mote did his undergraduate studies in the Social and 

Political Science Faculty of Parahyangan Catholic University in 

Bandung, Indonesia. He began working as a journalist for Kompas, 

a leading daily newspaper of Indonesia, in 1988. From 1998–2001, 

38

he was bureau chief of Kompas for West Papua. He led a historic 

team of 100 to meet with President Habibie. 

Mr. Mote obtained political asylum in the United States following death threats. He is now visiting fellow at the Cornell University Southeast Asian Program and the Genocide Studies Center 

of Yale University. 

Mr. Salmon Mauritz Yumame is a retired executive of Telkom, 

the Indonesian Government communications company. He is chairman of the Democratic Forum. He has been involved in a dialogue 

with the Governor’s office and the Indonesian Department of Interior over the implementation of special autonomy. 

In June and July of this year, some 20,000 people took to the 

streets in demonstrations against FORDEM’s call to return the 

special autonomy law to the Indonesian Government. 

Eben Kirksey is a visiting assistant professor at the CUNY Graduate Center in New York. In 1998, he was an exchange student at 

Cenderawasih University, where he witnessed the shooting of fellow students and a subsequent massacre in Biak. He earned his 

B.A. in anthropology and biology from New College of Florida. As 

a Marshall Scholar at the University of Oxford, he studied Indonesian state violence in the Provinces of Papua and West Papua. 

After earning his master’s in philosophy from Oxford University, he 

completed his doctoral program at the University of California at 

Santa Cruz. It is expected that he will be publishing a book concerning the issue. 

Ms. Sophie Richardson is the acting director of Human Rights 

Watch, Asia division, and oversees the organizations’ work on 

China. A graduate of the University of Virginia and Oberlin College, Dr. Richardson is the author of numerous articles on domestic 

Chinese political reform, and on democratization and human rights 

in Cambodia, China, Hong Kong and the Philippines. She has testified before European Parliaments and the U.S. Senate and the 

House of Representatives. She has provided commentary to the 

BBC, CNN, Far Eastern Economic Review, Foreign Policy, and a 

whole host of other organizations. 

Did I miss anybody? I think we pretty much covered our bases. 

I would like at this time for Dr. Drooglever to give his testimony. 

Again, without objection, all your statements will be made part 

of the record. If you have any additional materials that you want 

to add on to be made part of the record, yes, do so. 

Also, because of the number of witnesses that we have, if you 

could please be concise and limit your statements to 5 minutes. So 

give us the meat. Don’t go all over the world and go to the moon 

and then come back and miss the point. Give us the meat of your 

statements. As I said, your statements will be fully made part of 

the record. 

Again, I want to thank all of you, especially those of you who 

have traveled all the way from Indonesia to come and testify before 

this subcommittee. 

As I said earlier, I am not aware that in the history of Congress, 

either in the Senate or in the House, that an oversight hearing has 

ever been held concerning West Papua. So, consider yourselves pioneers. 

39

As to what direction this hearing is going to take us in the future, I want to assure you, ladies and gentlemen, that my purpose 

in this hearing is not to point fingers and say any disparaging 

things to embarrass the Government of Indonesia. But it would be 

very helpful for my colleagues and for the American public to know 

more about your people and understand that some 2.2 million people live in Papuan and West Papua, and we do take an interest. 

Someone once said that here in America, there is, after all, one 

race, and that is the human race. I think if we understand that in 

terms of the principles involved here, we will, I think, elevate this 

issue and hopefully something good will come as a result of this 

hearing. 

Professor Drooglever. I might also add before he begins his statement, this is a copy of the book that Professor Drooglever gave me, 

almost 700 pages. I spent all last night reading the book, Professor 

Drooglever. To my knowledge, this is probably the most comprehensive work ever done on the history of the situation in Papua 

and on Indonesian, U.S. and U.N. involvement. 

I am making a plug here for him. Buy the book. 

What is interesting about this is that he was assigned by the 

Dutch Parliament, if I remember correctly, to do a study about 

West Papua under condition that he be given absolute access and 

freedom to do the research in the archives and documents and everything, for which it was promised and it was given, the archives 

here in the United States, Great Britain, France, Netherlands but 

not, unfortunately, Indonesia. But hopefully maybe one day you 

will be given access to do a study there, too. 

So I just want to say I was very, very impressed, Professor 

Drooglever, with this scholarly work that you have done. Five years 

is a long time. I don’t think I could ever write a book taking that 

long, taking 5 years to meticulously document and put everything 

in mind in terms of explaining to the public, scholars and to everybody, for that matter, what happened. 

So, Pieter, please, proceed. 

Mr. DROOGLEVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You have given an 

excellent example, and I hope many will follow. 

Well, the book then, ‘‘The Act of Free Choice, Decolonization and 

the Right to Self-Determination in Papua,’’ that is the subject. That 

book gives——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Can you put the microphone closer to you? 

I know you have a very strong accent. 

Mr. DROOGLEVER. Thank you. Yes, I will do my best. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, we Americans, we have a very 

difficult time in speaking. I am still learning how to speak English, 

by the way, so forgive me for this. 

I know you tend to speak very fast, but please help me. Go at 

about 50 miles an hour, and I think I can grasp it. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF PIETER DROOGLEVER, PH.D., PROFESSOR 

EMERITUS, INSTITUTE OF NETHERLANDS HISTORY 

Mr. DROOGLEVER. The book gives an overall picture of the history 

of West Papua, a territory that was only brought under effective 

rule of the Netherlands in the 20th century. The focus of the book 

is on the post-war history of the territory. 

40

It explores Papua’s exclusion from the transfer of sovereignty to 

Indonesia in 1949, the subsequent conflict with Indonesia, and origins of the New York Agreement signed in 1962. 

The parties to this agreement decided to hand over the territory 

to Indonesia through the intermediary of a temporary U.N. administration. That New York Agreement stipulated that after a period 

of Indonesian rule, there would be a plebiscite for the Papuans in 

which they would be able to choose between permanent integration 

within the Indonesian state or not. That plebiscite, called the Act 

of Free Choice, had to be organized by Indonesia under the terms 

put down in the New York Agreement and carried out under supervision of the United Nations. 

It took place in 1969, and it resulted in a unanimous vote in 

favor of permanent inclusion in Indonesia. None of the United Nations observers present in the field nor observers from abroad believed the results. The evidence brought forward in my book allows 

for no other conclusion then that the outcome was in no way representative of the real feelings of the population. Under the eyes 

of the United Nations, the Act of Free Choice perpetuated an era 

of repression and deprivation for the Papuans that essentially continues until the present day. 

In this story, a few points are relevant for the hearing today. 

One, the final period of Dutch administration between 1950 and 

1962 was a belated effort in preparing the Papuans for self-determination. It led to the creation of a small but rapidly expanding 

young Papuan elite who entered the administration and educational system in increasing numbers. 

They developed a communal feeling and a nationalism of their 

own. Political life sprang up, and a national committee decided for 

a flag and an anthem for the Papuans. Upon instigation of the 

Dutch, plans were developed for self-determination in or around 

1970. For the Papuan elite, the entrance of the Indonesians shortly 

afterwards, after the conclusion of the New York Agreement, was 

a certain shock which made an end to their dreams of future independence. The Papuans felt like they had been betrayed by the 

world. 

Two: The New York Agreement was brought about under pressure from the United States. At the end of the Eisenhower administration, The State Department drafted a document that later was 

to form the basis of the New York Agreement. 

U.S. officials first proposed the idea of a new and interim administration before transfer to Indonesia. Following pressure from the 

Dutch, some paragraphs of self-determination were added in, but 

these were weakly worded as a result of Indonesian counter pressure. So, the foundations for the enactment Act of Free Choice were 

already laid down in agreement itself. 

In 1962, when the New York Agreement was formulated, the Indonesians were in a position to put strong pressure upon the 

Dutch. The Republic of Indonesia had assembled in the space of a 

few years an impressive invading force. They had advanced weaponry, ships and airplanes that had been supplied both by the 

Americans and the Russians. 

Earlier U.S. promises of military support for the Dutch in case 

of an Indonesian attack were played down gradually during the neVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:47 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\APGE\092210B\58430 HFA PsN: SHIRL
41

gotiations. The Dutch were confronted with a war that would have 

to be fought without American support. 

Moreover, in the Netherlands itself, a longing for better relations 

with Indonesia, its former and dearest colony, was growing stronger. This mixture of circumstances and arguments and sentiments 

forced the Dutch Government to give in. 

Then the fourth point. Under these conditions, the role of the 

military in the Indonesian victory of 1962 was undeniable and conspicuous. Indonesian soldiers were well aware of this. When given 

access to New Guinea, as it was called that still, in October 1962, 

they took possession of the territory in a spirit of victorious occupational army. The Dutch slipped out under U.N. protection, and for 

them, that was an advantage indeed. But the Papuans had to cope 

with the soldiers and accompanying officials. 

From the beginning, the Indonesian army was the prime force in 

the administration of the territory. It was carried out in a very 

rough-handed way, with hardly any appreciation for the special 

character of the Papuan worlds. 

For most Indonesians, West Papua was a place of banishment. 

Yet, in the beginning at least, they enjoyed taking over a comfortable colonial administration. The typewriters, the hospital 

equipment and all the elements of the basic infrastructure were 

taken away. Jobs of the Papuan elite were taken over, the educational system graded down, and the civil society of West Papua 

slipped down the road toward greater misery. 

After General Suharto became President of Indonesia, the new 

minister of foreign affairs, Adam Malik, visited the territory. Malik 

was shocked by the desolation he found there. The Javanese civil 

servants had robbed the country blind. Embitterment reigned everywhere, in his own words. 

Malik promised improvement, but in effect, his government 

brought increasing military oppression. The first operations of the 

Papuan resistance had already started in 1965, and were countered 

by Indonesian soldiers with maximum violence. The number of victims is hard to determine, in large part due to lack of access to the 

territory by foreign observers. 

Altogether, the casualties ran into the thousands already by 

1969. By most estimations, the violence increased until April 1985, 

and then slowed down afterwards; yet it is still a harshly governed 

territory, but this is outside the scope of my book. That is for my 

neighbors. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Drooglever follows:]

42


58430c-1.eps
43


58430c-2.eps
44


58430c-3.eps
45

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, professor. 

Mr. Mote, for your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. OCTOVIANUS MOTE, FOUNDER, WEST 

PAPUA ACTION NETWORK, PRESIDENT, PAPUA RESOURCE 

CENTER 

Mr. MOTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this historical testimony for us. On behalf of my nation, I would like to say thank you. 

Let me start by making a statement that the special autonomy 

in West Papua has failed. This was the conclusion drawn not by 

just a particular group that fights for independence, but the Papua 

Customary Council, and then the Papua Presidium Council. The 

Governor of West Papua also assigned a local university to evaluate the autonomy. The conclusions are the same as the aspirations 

of these people. 

Recently, the same university organized a seminar in the University of Indonesia and also tried to explain that this special autonomy has failed and tried to get support from other universities in 

Indonesia to raise that concern. 

As a background, Congressman, when this autonomy was raised 

I was in Papua as the bureau chief of Kompas Daily, the biggest 

newspaper. 

The dictatorship of President Suharto, who ruled Indonesia for 

32 years, came to an end in 1998 amidst a widely popular reform 

movement that swept this island nation. The era of comparative 

freedom that came with the end of Suharto’s rule opened new political opportunities for the people of West Papua, as well as Timor 

and Aceh. 

Nationalist movements developed grassroots support in each of 

these territories. Public demonstrations in Papua, which featured 

the flying of the Morning Star flag, were staged throughout the territory in 1998. 

A delegation of 100 Papuan leaders met with President Habibie. 

I was appointed by the Government of Indonesia to facilitate that 

meeting. In the palace, on October 25th, 1999, people expressed 

their experience under Indonesian control, and then they said, ‘‘Let 

us go to maintain ourself.’’

Right after that meeting, Mr. Chairman, I was accused by the 

Government of Indonesia, and I was put on a travel ban to abroad. 

Luckily, at that moment, I was invited by the U.S. Government. I 

traveled to the U.S. and then I received political asylum in this 

country. 

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of aspects of progress that we 

can admit that happened under special autonomy, which is the 

funding, for instance, the amount of money that was just mentioned. But the problem, Mr. Chairman, is that the Governor of 

West Papua admitted that more than 80 percent of that funding 

is going for the government for salary and to build new regencies 

that the Government of Indonesia is extending right now. 

When I was there as a journalist, Mr. Chairman, it was just nine 

regencies. Right now, we have 30 new regencies, and all this money 

is going for the new construction for the public servants that come 

to the regencies. This is one of the threats, Mr. Chairman, about 

46

the Papuans, that we feel we will extinct even faster than what we 

were thinking of before. 

Another point I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is about the 

security in West Papua. On the proposal that the West Papuans, 

the people that are preparing this special autonomy, they tried to 

put the security under the Governor’s control, but it was cut out, 

and it stated that ‘‘no civilian authority can control the military.’’ 

And right now, Mr. Chairman, the number of the troops is extending more and more. 

Under Indonesian law, each and every regency is allowed to form 

a new district for the military. So it is just a matter of time that 

the military will extend more and more troops under Indonesian 

law. So, so far, the military are the same. There is nothing changed 

in the military’s attitudes in West Papua. 

The Papuan people right now, they reject this special autonomy, 

Mr. Congressman, basically not just because they don’t get any 

education, the economic and the welfare issue, but really because 

they see that they are really about to extend. And they can see in 

almost all of the big cities in West Papua, Mr. Congressman, the 

population is 60 percent settlers and 40 percent are Papuans. So 

we still have the West Papuan population in remote areas, but in 

the cities, already we are a minority, Mr. Congressman. 

A couple of years ago, at Yale University, where I am part of a 

seminar, a professor right there explained when he visited West 

Papua, in order to recognize the situation in West Papua, you don’t 

have to study a long time. You just sit in the market, and you will 

see how the new colonization is taking place in West Papua. 

Therefore, Congressman, Papuans have lost faith in the will of 

the Indonesian Government to resolve longstanding differences; 

autocratic rule by the distant official in Jakarta, security forces 

that continue to operate with impunity, as well as laws that limit 

basic political and religious freedoms. 

The Papuan Traditional Council, they wants ‘‘our’’ Papua. It is 

a political organization representing 250 indigenous West Papuans 

that have recently reiterated the call for the dialogue between the 

Republic of Indonesia and the Papuan people. Such a dialogue 

would only be possible, according to the Papuan tradition and culture, which we have the chairman of the Papuan customary council, right there. That dialogue should be taking place with the 

international community as a neutral third party. 

Last, just this week, Mr. President SBY stated that he rejects 

the special—the dialogue with the Papuans. This is what we see 

as Papuans as a discrimination policy, because the same President 

is willing to dialogue with the Acehnese, but why he reject us? 

Mr. Chairman, therefore, we would like to thank you for your recent letter to President Obama encouraging him to make West 

Papua one of the highest priorities of the administration. 

We also thank you, to the other 50 Members of the U.S. Congress 

who signed this letter asking the President to meet with the people 

of West Papua during his upcoming trip to Indonesia. We sincerely 

hope that the President will take your request to heart. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mote follows:]

47


58430d-1.eps
48


58430d-2.eps
49


58430d-3.eps
50

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. 

We are joined this afternoon by one of our distinguished colleagues and senior members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my 

good friend, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee from the great 

State of Texas. I would like to give her this opportunity for an 

opening statement, if she has one. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. I 

think it will be important for the witnesses to know that the chairman was kind enough to make this an open meeting for members 

of the full committee that may not be on the subcommittee. Forgive 

me for not being here at the start of the hearing, and I may not 

be able to stay. 

But I wanted the chairman to know that I consider this of such 

importance that beyond the letter that we have written, I would 

like to join him in whatever his leadership chooses to pursue, i.e., 

an additional letter, as we begin to approach 2011, to encourage 

the President to meet on this very important issue regarding West 

Papua and the people, the indigenous people of that area. 

My remarks speak to the largeness of human rights. I am sympathetic and very knowledgeable of the important role that Indonesia plays as a democratic Islamic nation, the largest Muslim Nation, the importance of that. We should not take away from that. 

But I believe that human life and dignity must also stand up 

against or stand alongside comprehensive peace agreements or alliances where we are trying to bolster the relationship between an 

Islamic nation and the United States. 

Frankly, I believe that the United States in its government today 

probably has less to apologize for as relates to the Muslim world. 

We have extended our hand of friendship. I believe I am a friend 

of the Muslim world. I don’t believe we hold to discrimination, despite the diversity in our country that raises their voices sometimes. So I think we are on good ground. 

But if there is anything that we have the moral high ground to 

stand on, including our own internal assessment of our own beliefs, 

is the question of human rights and the indigenous rights or the 

rights of people to be sovereign or at least to be respected. 

I know there are separatists who become frustrated and don’t believe that there is a serious commitment to recognizing the people. 

I am particularly concerned because of the pending visit of our 

President focused around the relationship between Indonesia and 

the United States. 

So I really came to add my support to the leadership of this very 

fine chairman, who has brought enormously important issues on 

indigenous people who may not feel they have been heard. 

We cannot, and I would pose a question for the record, Mr. 

Chairman, and I know we are not in the questioning timeframe at 

this point, but I think it is important that Mr. Joseph Yun, who 

I believe is here and is deputy assistant to the East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and I am not seeing his name, but maybe I am ignoring it. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Will the gentlelady yield? He did testify earlier this afternoon, and I will be more than glad to forward whatever list of questions you might have for him to respond to us for 

the record. We would be happy to do that. 

51

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. Then I will articulate the question. I don’t think the Congress should have to wait until the night 

before the President’s visit to get a firm response as to whether or 

not this issue will be an agenda item as he goes to meet with the 

leadership in Indonesia. I. 

Know this very fine chairman probably probed Mr. Yun, Secretary Yun, with that same question. I am not sure how detailed 

the answer may have been. 

But this is so important. Indonesia is so distant that we should 

not lose the opportunity to have a very serious discussion that involves human rights. Frankly, I believe that as we engage with the 

Muslim world, as we continue to emphasize that Islam is a faith, 

as other faiths are, a faith of nonviolence, a faith of charity and 

love, we can do that and work to establish relationships with Indonesia as we ask the hard questions about what you are doing about 

the indigenous people who are still asking for their rights as well. 

This is a difficult challenge because, Mr. Chairman, I would wonder whether or not we would be able to assess that we had the people from this region as our neighbor. When I say that, someone 

would say, oh, yes, there is a family down the street. Maybe there 

is. But it probably is not as much on the minds of Americans as 

it should be. It is the responsibility of the United States Congress 

to do it. 

Let me conclude, because of the chairman’s indulgence, to be able 

to just emphasize the issues that I have read in this memo. I am 

tempted and will put on the record that it is alleged that potentially this population, West Papua, has suffered great injustices 

and a deprivation at the hand of Indonesia, where may some have 

described it as genocide. 

We were afraid of that word with Sudan. We ran away from that 

word with Sudan. We ran away because we were sensitive to wanting to create relationships and continue dialogues. I want to create 

relationships. I want to continue dialogue. But Mr. Chairman, I am 

not willing to create relationships and continue dialogue over the 

dead bodies or the loss of life of a population of people. 

I did say this is my last comment, but I am reminded of the collaboration of so many Americans, including you, Mr. Chairman, 

being a leader during the tsunami, when many rushed to Indonesia 

and that region, Sri Lanka and other places, because we cared 

about the loss of human life and we wanted to be there to aid our 

friends. 

We just simply ask now that Indonesia, as a pending friend and 

as a friend, join us in answering the questions about the military 

operations and the denial of human rights and the potential of a 

terrible act that may be called genocide. 

And to our President, who I know holds a moral high ground on 

human rights, we are asking that these discussions be carried on 

in any visit by the President of the United States to Indonesia as 

we look forward to cementing our partnership and as well recognizing the rights of all people. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to provide an opening 

statement. With that, I yield. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentlelady for her most eloquent 

statement and deep insights in terms of the issues confronting the 

52

people of West Papua, as well as our ongoing relationship with the 

leaders in the Republic of Indonesia. 

There is no question that the issue poses a lot of challenges and 

a tremendous amount of problems affecting the lives and the welfare of the people of West Papua. And it is my sincere hope that 

this hearing is an indicator of the interest of Members of Congress. 

I want to make sure that we will continue this dialogue and want 

to work very closely with the leaders of Indonesia to see what we 

can do to give proper assistance to the needs of our Papuan brothers and sisters. 

With that, I thank the gentlelady for her statement. She is welcome to ask any questions. 

We just got through with two witnesses testifying, so at this 

time, I would like to ask Mr. Rumbewas for his statement, please. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HENKIE RUMBEWAS, INTERNATIONAL 

ADVOCATE, AUSTRALIA WEST PAPUA ASSOCIATION (AWPA) 

Mr. RUMBEWAS. Well, allow me to extend my greetings and gratitude from the people of West Papua. We are indigenous people 

from Koya, from the people of the mountains, and Jow Suba from 

my people, and Achemo from the head of the birds, to you, Mr. 

Chairman, to Chairman Donald Payne, and to all Members of the 

United States Congress who have supported West Papua. With my 

whole heart, I traveled all the way from West Papua, although I 

have been living in exile in Australia at the moment. But the last 

6 years, I have been teaching English, and I have been witnessing 

so much. 

Today I would like to say this, as follows: We owe particular 

gratitude to the 50 Members of Congress who signed a recent letter 

about West Papua to the President of the United States, Mr. 

Barack Obama. 

I will start with myself. I was born on September 27, 1956, on 

the island of Biak, where in the Second World War where the 

American base, where more than 12,000 American, Japanese were 

massacred. I was only 7 years old when the Indonesian military invaded West Papua in 1962. My father was a health worker at the 

local hospital during the Dutch administration. In the middle of 

night, my father was taken by the Armed Forces and sent to prison 

with many other West Papuans on the island of Biak. This was the 

first nightmare that I experienced in my life that I bring with me. 

My father was sent to jail simply because he rejected the Dutch 

Government also. We have to an independent state of Melanesian 

people, and he also rejected the Indonesian military, so both the 

Dutch and Indonesian rule. So from 1963 up to 1970, I did not live 

with my father, and my mother brought us all up. So those are the 

emotions I brought with me. But it is funny that a year after the 

Free Act of ‘‘No Choice,’’ which is 1970, then my father was released. 

Other experience I had, in 1967, one of my close uncles, 

Permenas Awom, looking at the failure that we could not win the 

possibilities of maintaining our land since the Dutch left, he started an armed struggle in Manokwari. Permenas was later persuaded by Suharto’s military government. The Indonesian military 

53

took him, and he disappeared, and until today, we question whereabouts he was. 

In 1969, a younger brother of my uncle Permenas Awom, which 

is Nataniel Awom, was very disappointed with the death of his 

brother Permenas, so he also started an armed struggle in Biak. 

He was also persuaded and surrendered peacefully, but then disappeared without any trace. The two uncles that I mentioned above 

are just the examples of many other West Papuans who disappeared without any trace. 

Between 1964 and 1967, a cousin and a close friend of mine—

you might have seen how well I danced this afternoon—because Arnold Ap, a fellow Papuan who was studying, my Sunday school 

teacher, he was only promoting our culture and our language. But 

the Indonesians saw it as a sign that we maintain our Black culture. He was assassinated, burned to death, and the body was 

thrown with other West Papuans along the beach in the middle of 

the town of Jayapura. 

These are the examples I am looking at. So since the death of 

my cousin, and a good friend of mine, and the cousin of Arnold Ap, 

the Catholic Church came to Papua while I was doing my English 

training, teaching and talking about East Timor. 

I am very glad that this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned 

about Mr. Mandela in South Africa, but a clearest example is that 

the Democratic leader Mr. Clinton—Mr. Clinton look at the case of 

East Timor, and America supported the independence of East 

Timor. How come, how come the Government of the United States 

could not look at the case of West Papua from the same perpetrator, which is the Indonesian Government? 

To the future of West Papuan refugees, I, myself, since 1984, I 

decided that I would like to make Australia a second home. I am 

very proud that my Australian friends from the Catholic Church 

took me and sponsored me to go to Australia. But whenever I return to Papua, it always hurts me. It always hurts me that we are 

living in poverty, although our country is very rich. 

The example that I have given to you, that I lost my uncle, he 

disappear without any trace. But my colleague here, Mr. Messet, 

I myself in 1970, I witnessed that the Indonesian military shot 

dead or assassinated his brother, and I witnessed it myself, the 

brutality of the Indonesian military in our country. 

What I could see since the last few years is that the Indonesian 

Government yesterday or a few days ago, when I arrived here at 

the airport, it is a very strong message I got. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, of the examples of the terminology that they use. Micronesians, Polynesians and Melanesians. When I arrived here, the 

immigration member asked me the meaning—when you look at the 

color of my skin, that I am Black, of course Australian people are 

White people. But the good question he asked me is, uh-huh, you 

come from a country which is known as Papua where we lost an 

American, Rockefeller. Was he eaten by cannibals? I said, he was 

not eaten by cannibals, but he was probably eaten by the crocodiles, because that is a swampy area that he fished in. 

But I remember that our dignity is being played around, like a 

very famous—not Martin Luther King, but what you call in this 

country Malcolm X—that the negativity that the Indonesians have 

54

toward us, the black color is always nothing but negativity. And, 

therefore, I like to—I am very proud of you, Mr. Chairman. I am 

sorry that I bring my emotion to you, but these are the feelings I 

carry. 

I brought to you to represent the people of West Papua because 

I live as a citizen of Australia. I have gained everything. But at the 

moment we have more than 12,000 refugees in Papua New Guinea, 

but we were called as border crossers. But in the future I would 

like to see if Australians can take migrants from internal war of 

Sri Lanka or any other internal wars in Asia. I like to see if Australia—because I am a citizen of Australia, I would like to see the 

Australian Government take some of our refugees, instead of being 

called border crossers. And also in America, hopefully we can have 

the United States of America accept some of our people who live 

with stateless status in Papua New Guinea. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this is all I like to bring to you 

today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rumbewas follows:]

55


58430e-1.eps
56


58430e-2.eps
57

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I thank the gentleman for his statement. 

You had mentioned something about stereotyping and a story going 

around that Mr. Rockefeller was eaten by the Papuans. And you 

had said earlier that, no, he wasn’t eaten by the Papuans; he was 

eaten by the crocodiles. I never could differentiate between crocodiles and alligators. 

But we have our own little story about people eating other people. This is about Captain Cook, the famous British captain who 

came to our islands. He was visiting the islands of our cousins, the 

Tongans, and unbeknownst to Captain Cook, of course, he left, and 

he gave a real grand name to the Tongans. He named the islands 

the Friendly Islands of Tonga. Little did he know, if he had stayed 

just a little longer, the Tongans were going to kill him. Of course, 

then he came to Hawaii. 

And another interesting story is about people being introduced as 

to what great things their people did. And this fellow was from 

Samoa. ‘‘Oh, I am from so and so. We built the Empire State Building. I am from so and so.’’ So when it came to him, he was asked 

about what famous thing his people claimed. ‘‘We ate Captain 

Cook,’’ he said. 

The gist of my story, Mr. Rumbewas, when the Hawaiians saw 

Captain Cook, they thought that he was the great god Lono who 

had come just at the right time for a festival. They treated him almost like a god. And then in one of the skirmishes, one of the Hawaiian chiefs stole some nails or a bolt, which they fought over. 

And Captain Cook was in the mix. And what happened was that 

one of the native Hawaiian chiefs struck him, and to the amazement of the Hawaiian chiefs, he groaned. And in the tradition of 

the Hawaiians, gods are not supposed to groan. So he must not be 

a god. He must be human. So they killed him instantly. 

So that is our story of who ate Captain Cook and who ate Mr. 

Rockefeller. We have all kinds of stories. So I can identify with 

your statement about sometimes the negative stereotyping which 

puts us in a very difficult situation. 

Mr. Messet, please. 

Mr. MESSET. Chairman, that was a very exciting story about this 

Mr. Cook. I want to ask you, was he cooked before being eaten? Or 

was he eaten alive by crocodiles? Captain Cook, the name is 

‘‘Cook.’’

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, Captain Cook, we have no crocodiles 

in our islands, and when they killed him, they have a special ritual 

for high chiefs, and they considered him a high chief. So according 

to Hawaiian tradition, what they do, they literally cooked him, 


58430e-3.eps
58

stripped the meat, the body from the bones, either fed him to the 

dogs or whatever. But then the bones were kept as a token since 

he was a high chief, but he wasn’t a god. That is the story of Captain Cook. 

I might also note the fact that he was known for being a great 

navigator when, in fact, it was a Tahitian chief by the name of 

Tupaia who told Captain Cook where some 80 islands were located 

throughout the Pacific. So Captain Cook took him on his voyages 

that went to the Pacific. And when he came to New Zealand, my 

Maori cousins thought that the Tahitian chief was the head of the 

delegation, and not Captain Cook. 

So we have our own set of stories in relation to Mr. Rumbewas’. 

So to your question, sir, he literally was cooked.

STATEMENT OF MR. NICHOLAS SIMEONE MESSET, WEST 

PAPUA 

Mr. MESSET. Chairman, thank you very much. Members of the 

subcommittee, ladies and gentlemen, first of all, thank you for this 

opportunity to testify before you on the issue of Papua, my home 

and the place where I was born and raised. I know you will hear 

many views today. The views I am about to say come from my own 

life experience with human rights issues and political developments 

in Papua. They come from my heart. I have been on the outside 

and on the inside, and I think I have a better view now. 

Chairman, let me be clear on where I came from. I was very critical and opposed to the Indonesian Government on the issue of 

Papua. Papua has had a very difficult history. It is the most beautiful place on the planet, but also a place where the people suffered 

from Dutch colonialism and Indonesian authoritarianism. There 

were injustices there, just like there were injustices all over Indonesia. There were conflicts there, and there were human rights violations, which also affected members of my family. 

But after many years of struggle and hardship, I realized that 

I can only cry for so long. No amount of tears can bring back the 

past. More importantly, I came to realize that the best solution is 

special autonomy. The special autonomy is the solution that is endorsed by the world community. This is the solution. This is most 

practical, good for Jakarta, good for the Papuans. This is the solution. This is best for the Papuans. I really hope and believe that 

this solution would bring political, economic and social empowerment for the Papuans. It is a just and fair solution, and it will finally allow Papuans to come to terms with our future. 

There is now a light of hope for Papuans. We can breathe the air 

of freedom. We can choose our own leaders. We can control and 

spend our own spending. We can write our own future. The more 

democratic Papua becomes, and the more development we get, the 

more we can resolve social and political tensions in Papua. As a 

Papuan, I really feel that we are now opening a new beginning. We 

no longer feel sidelined, but we are in control of our own destiny. 

I know my fellow Indonesians also feel like this. 

I have come here because I share your concern of human rights. 

Believe me, I have experienced this problem firsthand. There is 

still tension in Papua. The underlying conflict has not gone away, 

and there can be no bright future, no peaceful Papua unless respect 

59

for human rights is part of that future. I do not know how long this 

tension will go on, but I do ask you not to make the tensions worse, 

because when things get worse in Papua, you stay here in your 

comfort, and we suffer. You have to help to give them more hope, 

the right hope, not the false hope. It is the hope of unity, reconciliation, freedom, and development. 

You cannot understand Papua if you only look and hear only one 

side, and you cannot help us if you impose your views on us. We 

Papuans are not political commodity. I have returned to Papua, but 

Mr. Rumbewas remains to stay in Australia. I have been living in 

Sweden, the most wealthy country in the world and not America, 

Sweden is my asylum country, but I have to leave that beautiful 

country. I have to go. My daughter said to me, Dad, you are a madman. Why you took us from the darkness and brought us to the 

light and now you want to go back to the darkness? I said, ‘‘That 

is your philosophy, my daughter.’’ I want to take that light back 

to the Papuans where they can see the light, too. That is my 

daughter’s philosophy. 

It is better for me to struggle from the inside as part of this process rather than to fight from the outside with no result. I will keep 

pushing them to meet the commitment to protect their rights and 

the interests of my people. And because of special autonomy, I also 

keep pushing the elected Papuan leaders to do more for our people. 

I have no doubt whether the Indonesian Government was serious 

about human rights, but I changed my mind during the case of 

Theys Hiyo Eluay’s murder. The military officers who were found 

to be the masterminds in executing him were sentenced accordingly 

by the court. The military now is also restrained, unlike before, and 

I have not heard of major human rights violations recently. In fact, 

there is a growing trend of former OPM figures who have abandoned their cause and rejoined the new Papuan democracy, including me. 

Papua still has a very long way to go, Chairman. I do not have 

any delusions about the magnitude of our problems, but we cannot 

be stuck with the past. Otherwise, we are imprisoned by our fears. 

I really want the United States Congress to help Papuans improve 

their lives with more education, more jobs. I also hope Papua will 

be more open to the outside world. But this has to be lead not to 

more conflict, but to more peace, Chairman. 

I appreciate the attention of the United States Congress on the 

issue of Papua. I hope you do not send the wrong message to Indonesia and Papua. Do not undermine the goodwill that is now being 

developed. Help us preserve and improve our human rights that is 

now happening. Help us promote unity and reconciliation. 

In conclusion, Chairman, I, on behalf of the IGSSARPRI Foundation, as an independent and privately funded group dedicated to 

collaborating with all institutions and individuals wherever they 

may be, including the Government of Indonesia, to creating a just, 

peaceful, and prosperous society in the nation of Indonesia, inclusive of Papua, wishes to strongly make the following three-part recommendation on this historic occasion: Number one, that the 

United States House of Representatives and the United States administration under the leadership of President Barack Hussein 

Obama, as a matter of regional and international strategic priority, 

60

reaffirm and strengthen the Comprehensive Partnership Arrangement between the United States and the Republic of Indonesia 

without further delay. 

And number two, that in the future, where necessary, important 

issue relating to human rights and environmental concerns affecting Papua, as well as political, social and economic empowerment 

considerations intended for the people of the autonomous region be 

appropriately addressed strictly within the spirit of the Comprehensive Partnership Agreement between the two nations. 

And thirdly, that care must at all times be exercised whilst in 

the pursuit of the objectives of the Comprehensive Partnership Arrangement between the two nations and not allow any party to act 

in a manner that is liable to inflict unnecessary discomfort and 

anxiety upon the people of the autonomous region of Papua. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to be here to testify. Thank 

you, God. I am pleased to hear that. As well, Chairman, I am a 

Papuan, and I will still be a Papuan, but in Indonesia, they call 

it Mel-Indo, Melanesia/Indonesia. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Messet follows:]

61


58430f-1.eps
62


58430f-2.eps
63


58430f-3.eps
64


58430f-4.eps
65

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Mr. Yumame. 

STATEMENT OF MR. SALAMON MAURITS YUMAME, HEAD OF 

FORDEM (THE DEMOCRATIC FORUM) 

Mr. YUMAME. Mr. Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to 

speak before you. I speak on behalf of Papuan peoples. We Papuan 

people, our basic human rights have been denied for 41 years. 

When in 1969, we had been forced to become Indonesian by the 

‘‘Act of No Choice,’’ the act of manipulated choice. 

Through these fairly important things, I want to thank you for 

this meeting. It is very crucial to attend this testimony so that you 

can tell everybody what we are facing now in West Papua, that our 

people in West Papua today are in the verge on extinctions if there 

is no immediate and brave action to prevent it. 

Yesterday when I am in the military airplane when I flew from 

Jakarta to New York, I saw a brief film of Mr. Obama when he is 

trying to—his campaign for the President. He has promised the 

American people that we bring change. We believe this change can 

give a better life for us, for American people, and I feel that America has the capability—the American people has the ability to serve 

the improvement of our life, change in our Papuan life. 

Mr. Chairman, the title of my testimony is ‘‘The Failure of Special Testimony in West Papua: A Journey from Heaven to Hell.’’ 

Today there are ongoing social conflict in West Papua and has led 

to violation of human rights in Papua. Basically there are three 

root causes of this conflict. First, it is the political status quo of 

West Papua. Secondly is security approach and human rights violation. And third is lack of political commitment from the Government of Indonesia to develop the Papuan people. They only just 

have our natural resources. But the lack of commitment to develop 

our Papuan people. 

Special autonomy policies is an alternative policy by the Indonesian Government for the people of Papua in 2001, after a team 

of 100 people met with Indonesian President B.J. Habibie to request for an Independent State of West Papua. After implementation for almost 10 years, special autonomous policies considered by 

most Papuan people that it does not become prosperous policy, but, 

on the contrary, it has marginalized Papua people and let them 

bound deeper in the cycle of structural poverty. 

Human rights violations continue to occur, and massive dead of 

Papuan people population cause of poor health condition is HIV/

AID pandemic. The threat of death from various causes can lead 

the nation in Papua face the threat of extinction. 

The important causes are considered as the cause of the failure 

of the implementation of Papua—of special autonomy of Papua are, 

firstly, local government paralyze; secondly, divide and conquer policy among Papuan people. The Indonesian gives policy of ending 

the—against us in Papua area; third, massive influx of migrant led 

to Papua population disaster. Papua become minority in their 

homeland; fourth, the discrimination in economic disparity. The 

Papua population has been marginalized in the economic circle in 

the homeland; five, massive exploitation of natural resources without counting Papua people interest; and six, silent genocide policy 

66

implemented by the Indonesian Government; and seventhly, 

human rights violation by military and police over there. 

As an intellectual, this worsening situation of most of Papuan 

people, we organize a forum we call United Democratic Papuan 

People Forum. We initiate and organize a new nonviolence strategy. We have been working together with all Papuan community, 

community-based organizations. Some of those community leaders 

are with me today. They have come with me, and they use the hat 

like this. 

Since March 2010, we have been actively working hard to set up 

awareness of our Papuan identity and dignity, which has been destroyed by Indonesian Government. Since then we have approached 

various group of community, mainly youth and women and welleducated Papuans from high school to higher institute. Besides 

that, we provide written information and distribute it to Papuan 

people from door to door. 

We have also successfully organized more than six peaceful public demonstration, participated by more than 20,000 people. Most 

of them are youth and women. We have been working closely with 

Papuan People Assembly to hold Papuan People General Assembly 

on 9 and 10 June, 2010, in Jayapura. In this Congress, we, together with representative of Papuan people, have carried out evaluation of implementation of Special Autonomy in Papua Province. 

Finally, we have concluded that special autonomy policy has failed 

to bring welfare for Papuan people. 

As the consequences of the failure of special autonomy policy, 

Papuan people reject the continuation of the implementation of 

special autonomy, and urge the Indonesian Government to seek 

special way for implementing referendum as the final solution for 

Papuan people to exercise the right for self-determination. 

The decision of Papuan People Congress and decree of Papuan 

People Assembly No. 2, 12 of June, I attach with my testimony. 

Amid the decision of Congress Papua, FORDEM successfully organized a huge public demonstration and marching along 20 miles, 

with an estimated participation more than 10,000 people spent the 

night at the Parliament House in Jayapura. During this public 

demonstration, the police commander threatened to use violence to 

dispel the demonstration. We believe that through peaceful and 

nonviolent strategy, we will gain international attention and support. 

With regard to the failure of special autonomy, which has 

brought human right abuse in Papua since 41 years under Indonesian authoritarian rule, I urge and propose to the committee as 

follows: One, to uphold the protection of human right in the world, 

including the human rights of the West Papuan people, and to request the Government of Indonesia to open a humane and acceptable dialogue for a fresh referendum to replace the special autonomy policy. 

Second, the U.S. Government should stop military support for Indonesian Government as many of the human right abuse in Papua 

still committed by military and police force. 

Third, to put the pressure on Indonesian Government to allow 

international NGO, researchers and journalists to visit and work in 

Papua. 

67

Four, we hope that American Government can have and can consider to have a permanent consulate or U.S. Government representatives to be in Papua in order to monitor the human rights 

abuse in Papua. 

Mr. Chairman, I had three PowerPoint presentations I want to 

show you the situation about our suppression in Papua, if you don’t 

mind. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Yumame, we still have two other witnesses who haven’t testified. I think you have pretty much just outlined what you said orally. I don’t think we need to go through 

your PowerPoints at this point in time, but they will be made a 

part of the record. Okay? 

Mr. YUMAME. Okay. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Yumane follows:]

68


58430k-1.eps
69


58430k-2.eps
70


58430k-3.eps
71


58430k-4.eps
72


58430k-5.eps
73

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Dr. Kirksey. 

STATEMENT OF S. EBEN KIRKSEY, PH.D., VISITING ASSISTANT 

PROFESSOR, THE GRADUATE CENTER, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your 

leadership. It has been really consistent. And I see it is a real 

heartfelt thing, and it is a struggle that I share with you. 

I didn’t start out as a human rights activist. I went to West 

Papua in 1998 with a grant from the U.S. Indonesia Society. I basically wanted to study food. I wanted to study how indigenous communities subsist and survive amidst changing environmental circumstances. Weeks after I got there, I saw two fellow students get 

shot. I was at the University of Cenderawasih. That is the main 

government university in Jayapura. Steven Suripatti, a law student, was shot in the head. Corina Onim, a young woman, she was 

in high school, she was shot in the leg. 

I tried to get out of Jayapura. I went to Biak, and over the course 

of 3 days, I was trapped in a hotel while a massacre took place. 

Basically a group of protesters was surrounded at dawn. There 

were Indonesian police there. There were military people. There 

were Navy troops involved. They surrounded protesters who were 

peacefully sleeping under the Morning Star flag, and they started 

shooting into the crowd. 

Let me read what one of the eyewitnesses, one of the survivors 

told me. This eyewitness saw a truck that took the bodies of the 

dead and the dying away from this crime scene:

‘‘I counted 15 people in the first load. The truck came a second 

time and I counted 17 people inside. When they opened up the 

truck bed I could see lots of blood, in that small truck there 

was lots of blood.’’

In that initial attack there were about 29 people killed, according 

to human rights reports. The survivors of that initial attack, living 

people, were loaded onto Navy ships. I could see those ships from 

the hotel where I was trapped. We don’t know exactly how many 

people were on those ships. What we do know is that in the coming 

weeks, 32 decaying bodies washed onto the shore. 

I am going to be meeting with Mr. Scher later this week. We are 

going to help him fill in some of those numbers. We are coming up 

with more and more accurate numbers of how many Papuans have 

been killed. Rather than go through those numbers today, I would 

just like to show a single picture. This picture is of a bag. It is 

floating in the ocean. In that bag is a body. It was a 32-year-old 

health worker named Wellem Korwam. He was executed by police 

forces. And, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to show the pictures in 

this envelope today. I am going to offer them to you. At your discretion, you can put them in the record. 

These pictures in this envelope here show what happened after 

that bag was opened up. Basically the next picture in the series 

shows a man with plastic gloves. He is arranging a torso in a coffin. You can see white, black, and pink organs inside of the torso. 

The next picture is a jumble of seven different body parts; two legs, 

two arms, a head and a torso, two other pieces of the body’s trunk. 

74

The mouth of this body, the mouth of Wellem Korwam, someone 

who was a living human being, is distorted in these pictures. It is 

opened in a yawn. His eyes have turned whitish green. They are 

staring unfocused. The nose and the arms and the ears are all 

gone. Those pictures are in this envelope. 

The Rome Statute gives us a global framework for prosecuting 

violators of human rights when they enjoy impunity in their home 

country. I disagree with Mr. Scher. I think there is a very systematic and deliberate pattern taking place. People who harbor nationalist sentiments are targeted, they are killed, they are jailed. Amnesty International has a prisoner of conscience, Filep Karma, who 

is in jail for a 15-year jail sentence for simply raising a flag. 

Mr. Chairman, when U.S. citizens are killed, we can bring the 

perpetrators of those crimes to our courts. I am offering a 33-page 

article published in a peer-reviewed journal about two U.S. citizens, two schoolteachers, who were killed in Timika. I reviewed the 

evidence in this article that Indonesian soldiers participated in the 

shooting and killing of these Americans. The Indonesian courtroom 

that tried this crime sentenced Antonius Wamang and a couple of 

other Papuan accomplices. Wamang got life. The other guys got a 

few years. Wamang pled guilty to this crime, but it is very, very 

clear from the evidence that I have that he was not acting alone. 

The mastermind is at large. Mr. Wamang should be brought to a 

U.S. courtroom to be tried. 

I would also like to repeat a recommendation that Mr. Yumame 

made. In the moment after Wamang was sentenced, this person 

who had pled guilty to killing Americans, for several years, U.S. 

military aid was held up on the outcome of this case. But after 

Wamang was sentenced to life in prison, the Bush administration 

signaled a new era of military cooperation with Indonesia. Right 

now we have millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars going to foreign military financing as well as international education training, IMED, 

for Indonesia’s security forces. These are U.S. taxpayer dollars 

funding this. There are currently no legislative restrictions on purchases of U.S. military equipment by Indonesia. 

Mr. Chairman, Indonesia’s track record speaks for itself. The 

question I have for the administration is does the Democratic Party 

really want to continue associating with these human rights abusers? In my personal opinion, I think military aid from the United 

States to Indonesia should be cut off. If the Appropriations Committee decides to keep these programs in place, very real conditions 

and clear benchmarks should be established. The Indonesian Police, military and Navy should receive no more funding from the 

U.S. Government until the murderers of Wellem Korwam are 

brought to justice. They should receive no U.S. funds until Indonesian officials let forensic pathologists exhume the mass graves on 

Biak. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this historic hearing. With 

your continued leadership, the U.S. Government will play a role in 

ending Indonesian military impunity in West Papua. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirksey follows:]

75


58430g-1.eps
76


58430g-2.eps
77


58430g-3.eps
78


58430g-4.eps
79


58430g-5.eps
80

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Dr. Richardson. 

STATEMENT OF SOPHIE RICHARDSON, PH.D., ASIA ADVOCACY 

DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will do my best 

to be succinct. But thank you very much for having this hearing. 

I think your leadership on this issue gives people hope. 

Human Rights Watch takes no position on the claims to self-determination in Indonesia or in any other country; however, consistent with international law, we take a very strong position on 

the right of all individuals, including peaceful independence supporters, to express their political views peacefully without fear of 

arrest or other forms of reprisal. And we have long expressed concerns about ongoing abuses by the security forces in Papua and the 

lack of accountability for those abuses. 

Since 2007 alone, we have written four reports about abuses in 

Papua. There are copies here, and I would like to ask that they be 

made part of the record. Those detail abuses ranging from severe 

restrictions on the freedoms of expression, assembly and association to extrajudicial killings, tortures and rape. Many of those 

abuses were carried out by members of the security forces, including Brimob, Kostrad and Kopassus. 

You asked the earlier witnesses about what they thought contributes to some of the frustrations of people in Papua, and I think it 

is imperative that we spend a few minutes talking about impunity. 

I think it is very difficult to get people to buy into any sort of governing regime when they feel that the terrible abuses that they 

have suffered will go uninvestigated. And that has very much been 

the case not just in Papua, but across Indonesia. 

In July 2010, shortly after Secretary Gates left Jakarta, the TNI 

chief Djoko Santoso was quoted saying that as far as the TNI is 

concerned, the issue of past human rights violations is over. 

As long as people are not prosecuted for human rights abuses, 

they are not over. Impunity itself is a human rights abuse. And 

while many people either in Washington or in Jakarta may want 

us to believe that the TNI or other security forces in Indonesia do 

not carry out abuses on the scale that they once did, the fact that 

there is near total impunity for abuses in the past and now, and 

now—this is not in the past, this is now—is an extremely serious 

problem. 

I want to share with you just a few examples both from Papua 

and elsewhere. The failures to investigate and prosecute, for example, the cases of civilians abused by Kopassus forces in Merauke in 

2008 and 2009; the case of Yawan Wayeni in August 2009, who 

was taunted by members of the security forces as he laid dying; the 

cases of 13 activists who were disappeared in 1997 and 1998; and, 

of course, the case of Munir for which no one has ever really successfully been prosecuted. 

We have also documented extremely light sentences given to 

members of the military who were actually prosecuted and convicted for human rights abuses. We continue to see ongoing promotions for service within the military of people who are both 

credibly alleged and who have been convicted of human rights 

abuses. 

81

Here I find it a little bit difficult to accept the characterization 

of the removal of TNI from politics when the new Deputy Defense 

Minister is, in fact, a Kopassus officer who has a somewhat checkered past. 

We also see tremendous resistance to parliamentary oversight for 

impunity. We have not seen the kinds of commissions, the ad hoc 

court requested by the DPI to look into the disappearances of the 

students, nor have we seen movement on a bill that would give jurisdiction over the prosecution for abuses committed by members of 

the military of civilians into civilian courts. 

I think the argument often goes that somehow accountability and 

justice are inimical to peace. We couldn’t disagree with that more. 

And, in fact, my organization has done extensive research to show 

that accountability is crucial to long-term peace settlements and 

their stability. In that spirit, I would make the following recommendations, particularly to the Indonesian Government, that it 

immediately and unconditionally release all of the persons who are 

held for peaceful expression of their political views, particularly 

those we have written about in Papua; to amend or repeal all articles and regulations that criminalize forms of expression; to 

promptly respond to credible reports of torture in custody—this is 

also a very serious problem we have written about in Papua; and 

to remove arbitrary restrictions on access to all regions of Papua. 

To the U.S. Government, which we believe seriously undermined 

standards for military cooperation and accountability globally when 

it resumed ties to Kopassus, the U.S. should first recondition assistance to the Indonesian military and police on strict standards 

of accountability for current and past abuses. It should also push 

for the amendment or repeal of Indonesian laws that allow for the 

imprisonment of individuals for peaceful political expression, and 

the release of those imprisoned. And last but not least, it should 

push for the passage of Indonesian laws that shift prosecution of 

soldiers who have abused civilians into civilian courts. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Richardson follows:]

82


58430h-1.eps
83


58430h-2.eps
84


58430h-3.eps
85


58430h-4.eps
86


58430h-5.eps
87


58430h-6.eps
88


58430h-7.eps
89


58430h-8.eps
90


58430h-9.eps
91


58430h-10.eps
92


58430h-11.eps
93


58430h-12.eps
94


58430h-13.eps
95

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This has been a long afternoon, ladies and 

gentlemen, and it has not been very easy. I sense that there seems 

to be a difference of opinion about the current status of Papua and 

its relationship to Indonesia. 

Mr. Mote, you indicated that you feel that special autonomy status has failed. And I hear from Mr. Messet that he feels that special autonomy should still be on the books, or on the table, and that 

every effort should be made with the Indonesian Government to 

continue the process. 

So I would like to ask Mr. Mote, since you said that special autonomy has failed, what do you propose in place of that? 

Mr. MOTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The conclusion that the special autonomy has failed is really 

based not just people’s experience as Papua People’s Council or 

Papua Consultative Council, but this is based on a review that the 

Cenderawasih University has conducted. And President Yudhoyono 

just stated that he will reevaluate it. 

But the problem is, it is simple. On one hand, the President is 

promising and promising; but on the other hand, at the same time, 

the law, the military is conducting their nightmares to the 

Papuans. And the People Assembly, for instance——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No, Mr. Mote, my question is—you have 

made the statement that special autonomy has failed. What do you 

propose in exchange for that? 

Mr. MOTE. Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My proposal, wishes 

in line with the people of Papua, they call for a dialogue, and the 

dialogue that they are calling for is the dialogue that is facilitated 

by a third party. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Messet, as you know, months ago when 

I was in Jakarta, we had a very, very—what I thought was a very 

meaningful meeting, especially with one of the senior elders, Mr. 

Nicholas Jouwe. I am sure that all of you have had communications in your relationship with Mr. Jouwe. What is your assessment of the situation among the leaders? Because I am getting 

mixed signals here now. I mean, do you honestly believe that President SBY is making every effort to implement the provisions of 

special autonomy? 


58430h-14.eps
96

Mr. MESSET. Chairman, President SBY is a very honest man, I 

can tell you now. We have met in Jakarta on the second of April 

of this year. A lengthy discussion has been mostly about developments in Papua, how Americans involve themselves, how the 

American authority can ask the Indonesian Government about the 

special autonomy. That is why the three recommendations that I 

made here is for your Congress to consider and the United States 

administration to consider. 

Special autonomy doesn’t work, because we, the Papuans, we 

ourselves, have to reclaim ourselves, not Jakarta. Our leaders from 

the Governor, lord mayors, they are the one that you see. The 

money doesn’t—they don’t go down to the grassroots. When there 

are injections of, tomorrow will be independence, that is why everyone wants to say, oh, yeah, tomorrow if we get independence, we 

will be better than living with Indonesia. But if tomorrow we get 

independence——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Is your mic on? Something is wrong with 

the PA system here. Even my mic is not on. 

Mr. MESSET. Mr. Chairman, I think dialogue can be done to revise what autonomy has failed in Papua so we Papuans can talk 

with the central government about what we want, because autonomy, special autonomy, is a new thing to Indonesia. It is a new 

thing to implement only in Papua, Chairman. So this means, trouble with this is how to run it. An enormous amount of money has 

been given to the indigenous Papuans—not me, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. If I might jump in, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to ask Yumame, because you have 

also expressed a similar concern that you feel this autonomy has 

failed, what is your option? If you feel that special autonomy has 

failed, what do you suggest that the Papuan people do? 

Mr. YUMAME. Thank you. 

Most of Papuan people, we cannot believe in the missing government anymore. They say what you—like good saying, but they have 

done contrary. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. No. My question, Yumame, is what do you 

propose? 

Mr. YUMAME. Yes. I propose as many Papuan people want. They 

want ask to determine ourselves. We still stay in Indonesia, or we 

make our own state. All the Papuan people live like that, so they 

see there is no hope in special autonomy. They want to—any other 

solution, give the chance to Papuan, their choice, which kind of 

government they want. They want to stay in Indonesia, they won’t 

make the step. For example, unity with the United States. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Kirksey? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Sir, I know that Mr. Yumame has submitted some 

remarkable documents for the record, basically a signed statement 

by very senior leadership reflecting the outcome of a Congress that 

involved thousands and thousands of people. It was a unanimous 

consultation. I think there were two dissensions, but everyone said 

special autonomy has failed. I think the reason——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to follow up on what you just said. 

Was there a summit? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Yes. 

97

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Was there a meeting of all the top leaders 

among the Papuan people? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Yes. There was a very large summit. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. When was this done? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. This was in July of this year. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. 2 months ago? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Yes. What is really significant about that summit 

is that a lot of the drafters of the legislation were the participants. 

So the very people who wrote this law are saying, ‘‘This is no 

longer working. We need to do something new.’’

One of the flaws in the legislation as it was passed by the Indonesian Government is that it rejected some earlier provisions to put 

the Indonesian military under the control of local and regional civilian elected leaders. Right now there is still this shadow power 

structure. The Indonesian military and police operate with complete impunity. They are off civilian budgets. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, that is how Suharto had been operating for some 30 years, with a shadow military presence and all 

the different councils. Not just in West Papua, but it was also true 

throughout Indonesia. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Exactly. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So there is nothing new in that respect. The 

bottom line basically is to make sure that he has control of the situation. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Exactly. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. So this summit that was held in July concluded that the special autonomy is no longer viable? Now what do 

you propose? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Actually in those documents there is a series of recommendations that that summit made, and I don’t know if you 

have those at hand now, but they are in the record. There is a series of recommendations. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, what are they? Give us two or three 

of the most important recommendations. 

Mr. YUMAME. Yes. We have 11 recommendations. Firstly, we reject the continuation of special autonomy law because we think 

that it will destroy our dignity and extincts our Papuan people in 

our homeland. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What does Governor Suebu say about that? 

Mr. YUMAME. We have invited him. He attended our meeting, the 

Papua people meeting. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. What about the other Governor? 

Mr. YUMAME. We have given our decision to the Suebu government, to the People Representative Assembly, to the SBY government. Now they are thinking about it, and they think they want 

to give evaluation to the special autonomy. They want to—the use 

of the autonomy has been use for good things or not. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me ask you this. It is my understanding 

that Governor Suebu and the other Governor are the two highest 

elected officials among the Papuan people. Now, how much credence is given to these two elected Governors in terms of their relationship as elected officials of the Papuan people? 

Mr. YUMAME. Okay. Now we all—most Papuan people, we don’t 

believe about the government, because we see they leave us under 

98

the Indonesian operation system that did not give them the chance 

to formulate strategy for development Papuan people. Those best 

on Papuan——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I am being the devil’s advocate here. These 

two gentlemen were elected by the Papuan people. And, of course, 

as you know, in a democracy, if you feel that these gentlemen are 

not doing the will of the people, isn’t there a process among the two 

provinces to recall or make an effort to get rid of them if they are 

not doing properly their leadership role in being the two highest 

elected officials among the Papuans? 

Mr. YUMAME. Maybe I going to tell you that election system in 

Indonesia is not—our choice with our hat. Now they are bravely to 

the people, so we have to choice the men that can give more money, 

not they——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, you know, I am sure that Governor 

Suebu—who is the other Governor? 

Mr. RUMBEWAS. Abraham Atururi. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. This is critical because we need to understand this a little better, because in understanding that these are 

the two highest elected officials among the Papuan people, that 

was the will of the people being expressed. Now are you saying 

that you don’t want special autonomy, that these two elected officials don’t represent your interests anymore? Well, then how does 

this work within your provincial governments if these two need to 

be recalled by way of having an election to get rid of them, if that 

is what you wish? 

Mr. Rumbewas. 

Mr. RUMBEWAS. Right. Mr. Chairman, I know Mr. Abraham 

Atururi. I used to be an interpreter for him. But he is a former 

general from the army, from the navy. He is one of the leading 

Papuans, including—they have very good records of working together with Indonesian Government to invade East Timor. 

So basically, yes, we would like to have our own leaders, our 

Melanesian leaders, to lead us, but they are just remote controllers. 

They are controlled by the Indonesian central government. 

I just visited recently the province of Aceh. But the good thing 

I noticed in Aceh and also in New Caledonia, you mentioned this 

morning about Mr. Chubau. I wish if the Indonesian Government 

could give us a chance, as a matter of fact, on the decision of 14, 

we are not allowed to have a full, although we are only some kind 

of—some symbolic leadership. We are refused to do that. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Don’t bring East Timor into this situation. 

I don’t think it is fair to Mr. Numberi. I know Mr. Numberi. He 

is a member of the President’s cabinet, highly respected, and he 

has his own point of view, and was former Governor of West 

Papua. And as I recall, one of the big problems that we have in 

Papua is the corruption, even among the Papuan leaders and members. 

So I just want to kind of make sure that the record is clear. 

What I wanted to just get from you is whether you are saying that 

you have serious problems with special autonomy that I have always advocated and I have always believed in. Because that was 

the consensus that I got from the Papuan people and leaders—that 

they want to continue working to implement special autonomy. And 

99

I feel that if these basic essential elements are within the implementation of special autonomy, your civil rights, being treated fairly, the military not harassing you, or Kopassus or whatever, that 

you have an opportunity to make your own decisions. And one of 

them—and correct me if I am wrong—is the fact that you have 

elected your own Governors. They are not selected by Jakarta. It 

was by vote of the Papuan people that Governors Suebu and 

Atururi were duly elected as officials of the two provinces. Now, if 

you feel that that is now highly questionable in terms of their leadership, then it is up to the Papuan people themselves who are 

going to have to do that, not Jakarta. 

Mr. Mote. 

Mr. MOTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The problem with the two 

Governors is that, in one hand, they are representatives of Jakarta, 

and then also they are representative of West Papuans people who 

elect them. I have two personal stories about the Governor Suebu, 

where he trying to defend his people and many time he get a 

threat. He was even—cannot leave country because he was about 

to put in a travel ban. That happened just right after he was—

come back from Mexico as Ambassador. And he try, Mr. Chairman, 

try to defend his people. But Jakarta, they didn’t listen to him 

what he trying to defend. So in front of our people of West Papua, 

he seems like a powerless Governor because he cannot fight on behalf of them. And one other example, Mr. Chairman, which has 

just happened this month. There is a project in Merauke, it is 

called MIFEE project. It was proposed by——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Mote, I don’t want to interrupt you, but 

I am not here to point the finger or pass judgment on Mr. Suebu’s 

capacity or whatever may have been his conduct. As I have said, 

this is really a local issue among the Papuans themselves and I 

don’t want to suggest that we are here to put out dirty laundry, 

all the bad things about your own leaders that you elected. 

Mr. MOTE. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Wait, wait. I am not through yet. So I just 

want to make sure that, in fairness to your elected leaders, you understand that this is very, very important and elementary in American democracy. You elect someone, even if he is a son of whomever. But he is the elected person. And there is a recourse and a 

process so that if he is not worthy of that position or that office, 

then that is something that the Papuan people themselves are 

going to have to work within the system to find someone else to 

be your Governor. I think we are moving astray from the line of 

questioning that I have. If not, special autonomy, then what——

Mr. KIRKSEY. If I might, a lot of the assertions about democracy 

in Indonesia from the State Department earlier this afternoon were 

sort of uncritically, just sort of left there hanging in the air. The 

current situation for elections must be seen within this longer history. During the Suharto era, every couple of years, or every 4 

years you would have this grand democracy celebration, where the 

President staged these rituals, that you know there really weren’t 

any other candidates. It was just him, you know, getting selected 

again and again and again and again. There definitely has 

been——

100

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Kirksey, I don’t mean to interrupt you, 

but President SBY was among one or two or three candidates for 

the presidency, so you can’t say that he was the only candidate 

during the election process. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Exactly. There has definitely been improvement 

since 1998 when a popular democracy movement in Indonesia 

kicked Suharto out of office. But on a local and regional level, there 

are still all sorts of shenanigans that go on during election time. 

Ballot boxes are stuffed. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. How about our own shenanigans in our own 

election process here in America? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. So the candidates that are elected are constrained 

by political parties that are centered in Jakarta. It is not as transparent and representative as it is here. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I question even our own sense of 

transparency when we had to have nine justices at the Supreme 

Court to determine who our next President is going to be. That is 

not very democratic. I mean, come on. But I am very concerned, as 

I have always said from the very beginning when I met with the 

delegations of our friends from Papua, how important it is that 

there be a sense of direction and sentiments and consensus coming 

from the Papuan people as to their desires and their aspirations. 

We talk about reconciliation. We talk about all these things. I 

think we all agree on that. Now, there are difficulties, as Mr. 

Messet had said. There is no denial that the human rights abuses 

and all these things continue to go on. But at the same time, I am 

wanting to know from you, give me a better proposal or a better 

plan or other options. I know we have proposed that we have a dialogue with the best minds, both among the Indonesians and the 

Papuans, to have a dialogue with Jakarta or the SBY administration. 

Now, that hasn’t come about and there are some serious questions. And as you all know, one of the most serious concerns in Jakarta is that once you start talking about independence, then all 

bets are off. There is just no way that the Indonesian Government 

is going to grant independence. That is as best as I can assess the 

situation for the 15 years that I have been following this and we 

have known that Indonesia is very determined to see that Papua 

continues to be under the umbrella or the sovereignty of Indonesia. 

But I think the challenge for us is, with that being the reality, 

what are some of the suggestions that you might have on how we 

can move Indonesia to another phase of the ongoing process so that 

the Papuan people’s rights are respected, human rights and all of 

this? I think that is where we are, where the rubber meets the 

road in terms of the difficulties that we have. And that has been 

my frustration too. 

And Mr. Messet, I want to assure you that the last thing I ever 

want to do, or even this institution, Congress, is to tell your people 

what to do. Not the least ever, ever that we would entertain the 

thought that we would want to do this to your people or even to 

the Indonesian Government. But the whole basis of what we are 

trying to pursue here, give us a line, give us a dialogue. Give us 

an area or things that you feel are constructive in the process. And 

I suppose then, with a sense of confidence, that President SBY will 

101

say, Okay, let’s do something to be more helpful in making sure 

that the rights of the Papuan people are preserved or enhanced 

and that the military, TNI’s presence, will be controlled, and just 

have a good mutual relationship between Jakarta and the people 

of Papua. If that is not your goal, or your sense of the future, then 

tell me what other options there are. 

Mr. MESSET. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I apologize for making 

that remark, but I certainly hope that Papuans will decide the best 

for themselves within the Republic of Indonesia. And special autonomy should be revised and work properly to empower the Papuan 

people. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, Mr. Messet, as I have said, as part of 

my frustration, it has been 9 years now since we have been talking 

about special autonomy. And my friends, or our friends in Indonesia and Jakarta have not produced or shown any sense of planning, how to go about implementing the provisions of special autonomy. Correct me if I am wrong, but that has been my observation 

for the past 9 years. 

Mr. MESSET. I totally agree with you, chairman. Special autonomy is not only run by the Papuans in Papua but also from Jakarta. It has been decided that you hold the tail and leave the head 

goes around, but you control the tail. So if the special autonomy 

is totally given to the Papuans, I believe and I trust Papuan can 

look out for himself and they will be very happy to remain part of 

Indonesia until the end of the world. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And I believe, in response to your comment, 

I think that is the challenge of our Papuan people and leaders—

to show Jakarta that you do have the capacity and the capabilities 

and the wherewithal to be autonomous and not cause a revolution 

or something to that effect. I think that is really where we are at 

as far as the issue is concerned. Let me ask you this: Some of you 

may express concern about the Congress expressing an interest 

about West Papua. I believe there are other countries whose leaders have also expressed concern. I believe members of the British 

Parliament have also expressed concern on this, though not very 

many. Not very many. And I will be your friend and be frank with 

you. West Papua is not even on the radar screen as far as Washington is concerned. I just want to be realistic. We are not at the 

forefront of establishing or saying that this is part of our national 

conscience, national policy, in dealing with Indonesia and the reality of how we go about dealing with the Papuan people. But it 

doesn’t mean that we ought to just stop there. But we have—the 

process has to start somewhere. And it is my sincere hope that this 

hearing will be part of that process. Again, I want to ask the question of Mr. Jouwe. What is Mr. Jouwe’s position on this whole matter of special autonomy? 

Mr. MESSET. Mr. Jouwe is now attached to the foundation and 

he is now living in Jakarta. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I know. But what is his outlook in the long 

term for Papua’s future? You know, if I am understanding, he is 

the founder of OPM, certainly one of the elder statesmen and leaders of the Papuan people. And I sense he is very, very highly respected among the Papuan leaders and the people. And I just want 

102

to ask a question. What is his sense of vision for the Papuan people? 

Mr. MESSET. His vision is that special autonomy is the only solution for the Papuans, chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Mote, and after that, Dr. Drooglever. 

Mr. MOTE. When he arrived in Jakarta, he said that he will. He 

wanted to see if Government of Indonesia is really protecting 

Papuans rights so that they can live freely. My question, really 

back to Mr. Jouwe, if he is planning to live in West Papua, why 

now then he lives in Jayapura? There something is wrong. About 

the special autonomy, really the problem is, I really——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Mote, I am not defending Mr. Jouwe, 

but I can think of several reasons. Maybe he has a health condition 

or maybe he is unable to live in Janipura simply because of health 

reasons and not because he doesn’t want to live in West Papua. I 

make that assumption, but please don’t raise questions of that nature in fairness to Mr. Jouwe and his reasons for staying in Jakarta rather than living in West Papua. I think the gentleman, certainly in my sense when I met with the gentleman, has a sense of 

respect among the Papuan people and their leaders. I just wanted 

to——

Mr. MESSET. Thank you very much, Chairman. I highly appreciated your concern about Mr. Jouwe. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Dr. Drooglever. 

Mr. DROOGLEVER. Mr. Chairman, actually I was not wishing to 

interfere. It was just a token of concern for what was said here. 

But now I am speaking. As a historian, I am living in the past so 

I have got the right to talk about the present. But when you look 

through what has happened with the——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me add this, Dr. Drooglever. I think it 

was the famous poet philosopher Santayana who said those who 

don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Maybe take 

off from that point. 

Mr. DROOGLEVER. When you are looking back into the past, the 

recent past then you see that as soon as special autonomy was the 

thing of the future, then a couple of times revisions have been proposed. And then in all new proposals that are formulated, the last 

point, at the end of the revision, was the right of self determination. So I think the problem indeed for Papua society is that it cannot make a choice between autonomy and self determination. They 

want to have both, and I think that is the core of the problem. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Comments to that, gentlemen? 

Mr. YUMAME. I want to remind you that most of Papua, when 

they follow the Papuan people called us on June, they have decided. Papua must be given the chance to give their voice to give 

their choice. They will see that under the division government we 

have been manipulated with many policies. So the root of the problem, as I have said to you that many Papuans still think that our 

political status is questionable. 

So in the special autonomy without the commitment, not as we 

don’t believe. What kind of special autonomy will give us? So the 

people of Papua want give us chance to choose. We want to stay 

in Indonesia. We want to make our own, or we want the United 

States for example. Let us the voice of all the people most of the 

103

people in Papua, maybe some of us come, represent the voice of 

some early, some bureaucratic that now they have benefit of their 

position. I want to remind you that I have said to you that we don’t 

believe anymore. We don’t believe. Suebu when he was—try to 

campaign for the position, he give promise that he will take the 

Papuan people to freedom. 

And he made promise like that. So all the people, all the Papuan 

people, chose him as the Governor. But when he sits as the Governor he forgot his freedom. He doesn’t fight for that. He just only 

gives promises, promises, promises. Well, many Papuan people 

have died. Some things like, this thing the political system, the political party system not good to part in that. So as you have said 

to us, Why you elect Suebu? Why you have him in the election? Because the system not based on pure democratic, many begin, dominated the political party so they choose the Governor that can protect their interests. So our Papua, if I, for example, have good idea 

for protect Papuan people, but if there is no political party, choose 

me as the candidate. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. So I gather that now there seems to 

be consensus among the Papuan leaders to get rid of Governor 

Suebu. 

Mr. YUMAME. Yes. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. All right. Then who do you want to be in his 

place? What options do you propose if you want to get rid of Governor Suebu, get rid of Governor Abraham? Where do you go from 

there? Mr. Mote. 

Mr. MOTE. Mr. Congressman, I think it is not fair we get our 

Governor. I tried to explain was that he try, as a Governor try to 

defend his own people. I agree with—Mr. Messet said that you give 

some things, but you control from the Jakarta. That is, whoever 

will be Governor with that condition, no one, no one can really lead 

our people. 

The demand from West Papuans people because of the—in one 

hand you let these radical group running their dirty work in West 

Papua, on the other one, let that others, you know kind of try to 

explain that they want to do something, and in that kind of a condition, whoever Governor would be in West Papua would not be 

able to lead. 

So we are here, and what we are trying to say is that the trust 

through the Governor is not personal because of his ability. Because no one be able to control, even U.S. Government, on human 

rights issue, the powerful government here cannot talk with Indonesian Government. Really, the problem in West Papua is we have 

lost our dignity. We know we will being steal from our land. We 

are just 2 million people in 250 million Indonesian population. So 

I think we need to, as I was trying to explain, one of example about 

the MIFEE Project, he reject that project, but Jakarta said no we 

will go ahead and he wasn’t even invite by Governor, Indonesian 

Minister of Forestry when the project was allowed. This had just 

happened. So what they want is someone, someone West Papuans 

like a puppet who can just follow. And Congressman, I assure you, 

Suebu is a great leader. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Let me share with you something. We probably have 56 elected Governors from the different States and terriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:47 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\APGE\092210B\58430 HFA PsN: SHIRL
104

tories in America. And these Governors have the same problems 

with the Federal Government, almost like Washington has been 

the biggest problem as well. So what I am saying is that I don’t 

think your situation, your problem is any different from the problems that we are facing here as elected officials in Washington. A 

lot of times they are in conflict with the wishes of the people from 

different states who elect their Governors, okay? 

So I just wanted to share that bit of information about, when you 

elect your people, whatever Jakarta’s opinion is about whom you 

elect, the fact is that your people elected these two officials, not Jakarta and not anybody. I don’t think Jakarta put any pressure on 

you to elect Governor Suebu to begin with. So whatever deficiencies 

or problems that you feel that Dr. Suebu—that he doesn’t represent 

your interests—we have the same problems with our State Governors. And there are complaints that some of our State Governors 

don’t represent the interests of their States, especially in dealing 

with the Federal Government. 

So I just want to kind of cushion that idea is that you elect your 

Governor. They have got a lot of serious problems. Their leadership 

may be weak in various areas. And so it is true with all others. But 

the whole idea, and I want to ask you were these two gentlemen 

elected by the people? They were not selected by Jakarta, am I correct or wrong on this? 

Mr. MESSET. That is right, Congressman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Messet? 

Mr. MESSET. I think I said that is correct. Next year there will 

be another election, and hopefully the Papuan people will decide 

who is the next Governor for Papua and West Papua provinces. 

And this time, as you said, don’t blame the leaders, but ask the 

people to answer. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. In our democracy, once the people make 

their will known through the ballot box and you are elected, you 

are very dear and close to the hearts of the people because the people’s will has been expressed about you and you represent the people. Now, if they are not doing their job, we vote them out. It is 

as simple as that. And I suspect that come next year, when Governor Suebu and Abraham are up for reelection, you will then have 

an opportunity to say you want to get rid of these two leaders and 

choose somebody else. 

But I think when you generalize by saying that it is Jakarta that 

puts the pressure on you, when, in fact, Jakarta was never involved in your election process. This is what I really want to emphasize. You elected these two officials, not Jakarta. And whatever 

problems that you are having with them now, in next year’s election, then it is your wish to elect someone else. I mean, that is 

what the representation and democracy is all about. And unless, if 

I understand it differently, how and why people are elected, you 

know, for us, come 2 months from now, all 441 Members of Congress are going to be up for re-election. Every 2 years the entire 

House of Representatives has to stand for re-election. So why? So 

that the will of the people will be made known in the process. 

Now, again, you have to understand all your culture, all your traditions. But when it comes to the point where you now have the 

privilege of electing these two officials, the highest ranking officials 

105

among the Papuan people, that is very, very serious for how Members of Congress, my colleagues and people here in America perceive how your democracy has evolved. The fact is that your people 

are now given the privilege of electing your own Governors rather 

than them being selected by Jakarta. Okay, are we in the, understand that. 

Mr. RUMBEWAS. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether you are 

familiar with the recent situation where more than 10,000 people 

walking down through the Parliament to the West for a referendum. One of the decision, which is still part of the Indonesian 

system, which is Decision 14, the Papuans, as Mr. Messet mentioned, would like to have a full voice and determine of whether the 

Governor of the district full Black Melanesian people. There is a 

fear. There is a fear from the Indonesian Government to reject that 

policy. And at the moment they expect not a full Black Melanesians, but we also have vice where they are Indonesians. 

Now, as I mentioned to you, that I travel to Aceh and I see the 

Acehnese, they are Indonesian citizens like us according to the Indonesian Constitution, but they are free to appoint or elect their 

own native Acehnese and plus international community allow that 

to happen. Now, if as Mr. Messet mentioned, if Acehnese are Indonesians and we are Indonesians too, we have the right to support 

by the international communities to elect our own leaders like 

Aceh. And we have the discrimination. So people like Mr. Suebu 

and the Governor of Ataruli are basically people, the leaders who 

are making promises like Mr. Yumame mentioned. 

During the campaign, Mr. Suebu promised some people that 

when he stands up, he will talk about independence. But after he 

looks after his own tribe and his family, this is the whole issue. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Rumbewas, a lot of times politicians 

make promises. Okay? If you want to get reelected or elected, you 

make promises. And a lot of times there is a failure on those promises, just like our President Obama has made a lot of promises, and 

now he is coming under severe criticism. That is part of the election process. Now, you mentioned that the Aceh people select their 

own Governor. Now I am given to understand that you have a legislative counsel in the two provinces. Who elects members of the 

legislature in your province? Are they selected or are they elected? 

Mr. Yumame. 

Mr. YUMAME. The election system in the Papuan province, the 

candidate should be put by the political party. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Okay. 

Mr. YUMAME. So, as I said, now most of the political party led 

by migrant peoples. So most of our Papuan not involved in this political party. And by now, as you know, now migration, this massive migration came to Papua, so now we are a minority in our own 

place. So when the political party, and we go to the election system, 

our voice becomes the minority voice. 

So by now, if you follow the election, that really no Papuan become the leaders in Papua if we can protect with special election, 

like Mr. Rumbewas said enacted last year, our Papuan people assembly has made a decision that only Papuan can be candidates for 

the chief and his vice. 

106

But the Indonesian Government doesn’t achieve that. So we try 

to pursue the—we try to speak our voice, but we have now become 

the minority in our place. So if you force us to follow the election 

system, democratic election system there will not be any Papuan 

will become Governor because we have become minority in our 

place. And this is the danger we will be replaced tomorrow our future for the next Governor election. 

Papuans people voice has become minority. So we could not just 

Papuan people as the chief, so that is the problem for us. You said 

that democracy system like this. But our situation is essentially 

the same. Papua people have become the minority there. So that 

is the problem. We believe that if we follow the democratic system 

like this, we also lose. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. On that point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct something that Mr. Yun said earlier. He said it is a 60/40 relationship right now. We just had the 2010 Census results. The 

strange thing about the Census is that it doesn’t differentiate between Papuans and migrants. It is done as in previous Census 

data, what has been done by an Australian scholar, Jim Elmsley, 

and this is a document I can put on the record. He has taken the 

historical growth rate of Papuan populations and extrapolated 

what he thinks is the current relationship, the current ratio of 

Papuans versus migrants. His conclusion, in a paper published last 

week, is that Papuans have already become a minority. So just to 

correct what Mr. Yun said. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, what is the percentage difference? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. It is just under 50 percent right now, based on his 

calculations. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. But again, those are just estimates. They 

are not the real count. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Right. So it is basically they are hiding this question. Previously, the Indonesian Government made that data available. So us, as scholars, we have to do the math to figure out, you 

know, basically what we think is going on. And Indonesia should 

make that data available but at this point, they are not. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Any further comments? 

Mr. MESSET. Chairman, I just want to make a comment about 

Yumame’s remarks. Special autonomy has 76 or 79 articles. And 

one of the articles clearly said that the Governor and the vice governor should be a Melanesian. It doesn’t mention that, doesn’t mention anything because it is not stated in the special autonomies articles. It should be made a condition on that which the MRP hasn’t 

done so. That is our vote, the Papuans vote, not the Jakarta vote. 

They get millions of funds to establish this to make that, but we 

are lazy. We are lazy to do that. 

That is why it happened. That is why I said, autonomy is a good 

start. We have to go build on that. We make dialogue to revise autonomy so that it can be success for the Papuan people to remain 

in the fourth largest nation in the world. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you. Mr. Mote. 

Mr. MOTE. I didn’t know what kind of data that Mr. Messet is 

using to manipulate these fact that—based on the time from the 

Governor and that we showed that what Mr. Messet just said are 

totally wrong. And I would like to explain to you that this is not 

107

because of, as himself as a, you know, lazy. I am not. And this is 

really racial, you know, I never imagine in this kind of a forum this 

gentleman say that we are lazy. It is not the case. Mr. Chairman——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I don’t think he was implying that you are 

lazy. He is just making a generalization that some Papuans are 

lazy. But I don’t think he was directing his remarks at you, with 

all due respect. 

Mr. MOTE. No, I mean because the case is this, Mr. Chairman, 

that regardless of the West Papua province saying that Mr. Messet 

just saying it is to prepare in the past. That is supposed to be get 

endorsement from the government in order to take that to law, put 

in practice, and you know to evaluate the implication of special autonomy. 

He stated clearly that the central government doesn’t have a 

heart because they don’t endorse those—the law. So, and then, another example, under special autonomy law, government form people assembly, MRP. And when they try to fight for Papuans rights, 

they calling are that law, the Jakarta stigmatize, Mr. Chairman, 

as this is separatist movement. A group. The leader is separatist 

leader. How in the world, they are elected leader, Mr. Chairman, 

according to Indonesian law, and they are put in a stigma as a separatist leader. 

So really, the special autonomy is nothing worse because of the 

Jakarta really doesn’t want to give the special autonomy. Just as 

the background, Mr. Chairman, the special autonomy is agreed not 

because of Jakarta’s intention to give Papua, but because of the political situation in that moment, and Indonesian people assembly, 

MRP—MPR, was decreed that we have to give special autonomy. 

And the government delays many of the promises of the special autonomy. 

So I will file, as the record, the objective facts about this special 

autonomy, because we are not making statement after statement 

as Mr. Messet just saying. But please, you know, say the objective 

effect that you know all of these not working because the Jakarta 

didn’t pass a law that all the regulation can work, the Jakarta stigmatize whoever fight for our dignity, whoever fight for, you know, 

our protection as a separatist. That is the problem. The comparison 

to the democratic system in the United States, Mr. Chairman, you 

have a Governor where there is, you can, you know, always face 

the Federal Government. But the Federal Government will not 

stigmatize that Governor as enemy of the State. 

And he doesn’t have to be scared for his life just because he is 

critical to the Indonesian Government. And the last example, Mr. 

Chairman, I was a journalist in Indonesia biggest newspaper for 11 

years. I experience. And I can give you many others, Papuans 

where we try to fight, protect our people. They stigmatize us as 

enemy of the state. That is really the problem. That is a problem 

that is faced by any of the Papuans. So what Jakarta wants is 

someone West Papuan, slave, someone who just follow what Jakarta want. That is our problem, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I want to know what interested one of our 

Senators, very noted gentleman from the State of New York, Senator Moynihan. In the heat of the debate, everybody was quoting 

108

all their facts and all these things and saying it was the honest 

truth. And he made an observation which I thought is very much 

part of this dialogue. He said, ‘‘Sir, you may be entitled to your 

opinion, but you are not entitled to your facts.’’ The point is that 

you can’t make your own facts and try to justify that what you said 

is the truth. 

And again, I am not trying to lessen the importance of your opinions, which all of you are entitled to, and all of you have different 

opinions. The same reason that we were in a very interesting situation in dealing with Jakarta and the purpose of this is to figure out 

some of the challenges. What are some of the suggestions or recommendations that you gentlemen and Dr. Richardson may want 

to make for the Government of Indonesia in its treatment of the 

people in West Papua? So you know, I just want to note that. Do 

you have any further statements? I am about to put the gavel 

down. Dr. Kirksey. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. Just a real quick one on that last point. Mr. 

Yumame has suggested that a consulate in West Papua of the U.S. 

Government could help monitor human rights abuses. I think that 

is——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. There is no way that is going to happen. 

Mr. KIRKSEY. No way? 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You need to understand, the question of sovereignty is very, very key and important. No more than the suggestion that Indonesia wants to set up a consulate here to keep track 

of whatever problem that we have. So there has got to be an understanding that we deal in terms of our interactions with other countries. But at the same time, there has to be a respect for their sovereignty. 

As bad as it may seem in the opinions of others, when you talk 

about human rights, that is the traditional rule in terms of the relationships existing among the different countries of the world. And 

while I respect your recommendation that we have a consulate in 

West Papua, to do this, I can just say——

Mr. KIRKSEY. Related to U.S. Government presence, NAMRU, 

the Naval Medical Research Unit, has been there for at least a decade if not, well much longer than that. My question is, what are 

they doing there? They are conducting research about malaria. I 

have had malaria 12 times. Part of this, what has been called by 

some Papuan intellectuals a silent genocide or a slow genocide 

deals with public health. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The Americans are doing that? 

Mr. KIRKSEY. This is the U.S. Naval Medical Research unit. They 

have been conducting experiments for many years, but they have 

not liaised with any local health officials. Malaria is a disease that 

we know how to control. It used to be all over the United States 

and many Latin American countries. It has been eliminated. It is 

within our capacity as the U.S. Government, with this research 

unit, with this, you know, history of working there. We can solve 

this problem. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I can’t answer your question on that, Dr. 

Kirksey, as to why they are there and conducting experiments and 

the problem dealing with mosquitos and malaria, but that is a very 

serious issue in West Papua as it is in other parts of the world. 

109

So I am afraid I can’t respond to your statement and questions why 

we are there. Mr. Rumbewas. 

Mr. RUMBEWAS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to return to you again 

and again. But one clear example is when I receive a letter from 

a conversation with my comrade here a month, and also we have 

arguments, very positive arguments with Mr. Messet. Let me say 

that regarding being lazy or not, I have good opportunities when 

my father was in prison, as I have testified to you today, and I got 

good education. Prosperity in Australia, like America and the Western World. But when I received the invitation, I returned. I come 

here. But I have returned to Papua to teach English. And that is 

what I wish that we were given the opportunity for the indigenous, 

start from the beginning of what in the history the Dutch tried to 

recruit us before we got our independence. 

Yes, political independence like Papua New Guinea. After getting 

their independence, they have problems. What I like to see is, and 

I would like to remind you, Mr. Chairman, as soon as I return after 

sitting with my other colleagues here as Papuan, I am not allowed 

to return to Papua as Mr. Messet mentioned. You are away from 

America, but the concern of my people, the concern of my people, 

but what I have experienced in my life, I can never return again. 

Since the last 2 days, the Indonesian intelligence have been visiting the relatives I live in Papua. 

And this is the freedom, and that is what I like to see that a full 

autonomy, like as I said, again and again, the Acehnese are Indonesians. We are Indonesians. But why can’t we have, why can’t 

America ask the Indonesians that there is a third party, so I can 

return like Mr. Messet and Franz Albert Yoca behind us, as a 

human beings like any Papuans and we decide these are the leaders we would like to choose and to lead ourselves like any other 

human being. We don’t have that. Mr. Chairman, I cannot. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Rumbewas, in fairness, I can’t say why 

you can’t go. Maybe it is a security risk. 

Mr. RUMBEWAS. That is correct. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The fear of the Indonesian Government 

might be that you are going to cause riots and cause a revolution. 

I don’t know. But I just want to say that your capacity, and why 

you are in asylum living in Australia is true with many other people from many other countries of the world living in asylum simply 

because of those concerns. 

So I can’t answer your question as to why the Indonesian Government does not allow you to return, when Mr. Nicholas Jouwe 

or Mr. Messet are now able to return, because they were also very 

much anti-Indonesia in terms of what happened in the past and 

the abuses or whatever. But in your particular situation, I really 

can’t respond to your question as to why you can’t return in the 

same way that Mr. Messet and Mr. Jouwe were able to go back. 

Mr. RUMBEWAS. That is true, Mr. Chairman. Only if I can be 

Melindo, not Melanesian to look after my own people. Only if I can 

be Melindo, Melanesian Indonesian, which means I have to accept 

the reality of the Indonesian ruling us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MOTE. If I may, I would like to add that I fully agree with 

what just Professor Drooglever was saying, that we never have any 

experience of our self-determination. I just would like to inform you 

110

that the special autonomy package was not decided by West 

Papuans people. We just force to accept that as the same as in our 

way and our right of self-determination was forced by others. So we 

didn’t call for our right to decide about our, as a human being in 

our land. And which is therefore, I am support Papuan people calling for referendum, or you can say internationally facilitated the 

dialogue. Whatever form it will be, but the chance that as Papuan 

people, they can exercise our freedom to express what we want to 

be. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I can’t question your sincerity over 

what you say happened in the past in terms of the rights of Papuan people. That is a matter of history. And Dr. Drooglever’s book 

clearly points to that. I don’t question that. The challenge here now 

is where do we go from here? How is the right of self-determination 

going to be given to the Papuan people? Another question is whether or not the Indonesian Government is going to grant that. The 

same way the referendum was held in East Timor under the auspices of the United Nations. 

I know that is the ideal situation to be given the right for you 

to determine your own future. We all want that. There is no question that as a matter of principle, your people were denied that 

privilege of self determination. Okay. 

So the reality is where do we go from there in terms of this denial that was given to you? You can take to the streets. You can 

have demonstrations. You can take up arms and conduct a guerilla 

war. These are the options. But the question is, are you willing to 

spill blood for this kind of thing? And I have always cautioned, as 

much as possible, with all due respect to our Papuan people, you 

have bows and arrows and spears and they have guns and bullets. 

That bullets travel a little faster than the spears. And that is reality. 

And I just want to share with you that my ultimate—really the 

last thing I would ever want to do is to spill blood of the Papuan 

people over this issue. Now, I wish we could do it. If there is a way 

it can be done peacefully through dialogue, I will keep pushing Jakarta to give you that privilege. But we are not at that juncture 

right now. When that is going to come about, your guess is as good 

as mine. But I sincerely hope, and for something that now I am 

sensing that you have an entirely different agenda now in terms 

of saying that you are denying any more discussions about special 

autonomy. 

But my question to you is where do we go from here? If not special autonomy, then what? Take it to the streets? Take up arms, 

because that basically is the price that you are, if you want freedom that badly, and willing to spill your guts and blood for it, then 

do it. But I say the better part of my common sense is that I just 

don’t think Papuan blood is too precious to be spilled over a situation that has taken place over a 60-year period. Yes, your people 

have suffered. But we have to continue the process. And I sincerely 

hope that President SBY, in his last term for the next 3 years, and 

I say this in good faith, that he is sincere in wanting to help the 

Papuan people. How he is going to go about in doing this, well, this 

is something that I hope that the dialog will continue. 

111

And like I said, the whole purpose of this hearing is not to point 

fingers at anybody or to give any sense of charges about the evils 

that have been done in the past. My more serious concern is where 

we are now and what do we need to do for the future? And if you 

have got better ideas based on where the consensus of the Papuan 

people lies in this, please let us know. I have had some of your 

leaders who have come from other countries all claiming that they 

speak on behalf the Papuan people. 

Now, I take this with a grain of salt because personally, I would 

rather talk to the people who are in Papua, who are struggling, 

who are actually there, to know their problems and their struggles. 

So there are so many different issues and concerns that we need 

to address. And like you, Mr. Messet, I have always said, yes, your 

people have to make that determination. You have to make that 

decision, not the American Congress or this country. 

But ultimately, what is it that your people want collectively and 

under a unified sense of voice that this is what you want. And certainly, with what little I can do in my capacity as chairman of this 

subcommittee, that is all I can do. So this has been a very lively 

dialogue in the sense that we have certainly differences of opinion 

about different issues. But that is the very purpose of having this 

hearing. Where do we go from here? I don’t know if I get reelected 

in November. I may not show up again and you may not see my 

ugly face again come November. I don’t know. But I will say, again, 

in good faith and sincerity, that I think President SBY does have 

a sincere heart in wanting to help the Papuan people. How he goes 

about doing this, what things are being done, that is the challenge 

for all of us, whether it be by dialogue or some other forum or however that we may want to do this. 

But I really hope that we continue to have this dialogue and 

communication and hope that Jakarta will be more forthcoming in 

helping the people of Papua. So with that, if you have no further 

statements that you want to add for the record, I am going to use 

this gavel and say, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 6:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

(113)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

114


58430n-1.eps
115


58430n-2.eps
116


58430m.eps
117

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE ENI F.H. 

FALEOMAVAEGA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM AMERICAN SAMOA, AND

CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT


58430l-1.eps
118


58430l-2.eps
119


58430l-3.eps
120


58430l-4.eps
121


58430o-1.eps
122


58430o-2.eps
123


58430p.eps
124


58430q.eps
125


58430r.eps
126


58430s.eps
127


58430t.eps
128


58430u.eps
129


58430v.eps
130


58430w.eps
131


58430x.eps
132


58430y-1.eps
133


58430y-2.eps
134


58430y-3.eps
135


58430y-4.eps
136


58430y-5.eps
137


58430z-1.eps
138


58430z-2.eps
139


58430z-3.eps
140


58430z-4.eps
141


58430z-5.eps
142


58430z-6.eps
143


58430z-7.eps
144


58430aa.eps
145


58430ab-1.eps
146


58430ab-2.eps
147


58430ac.eps 58430ad.eps
148


58430ae.eps 58430af.eps
149


58430ag.eps 58430ah.eps
150


58430ai-1.eps
151


58430ai-2.eps
152


58430ai-3.eps
153


58430aj-1.eps
154


58430aj-2.eps
155


58430aj-3.eps
156


58430ak-1.eps
157


58430ak-2.eps
158


58430al-1.eps
159


58430al-2.eps
160


58430am-1.eps
161


58430am-2.eps
162


58430an-1.eps
163


58430an-2.eps
164


58430an-3.eps
165


58430ao-1.eps
166


58430ao-2.eps
167


58430ap-1.eps
168


58430ap-2.eps
169


58430ap-3.eps
170


58430ap-4.eps
171


58430ap-5.eps
172


58430ap-6.eps
173


58430ap-7.eps
174


58430aq.eps
175


58430ar-1.eps
176


58430ar-2.eps
177


58430ar-3.eps
178


58430ar-4.eps
179


58430as-1.eps
180


58430as-2.eps
181


58430at-1.eps
182

Æ


58430at-2.eps