Rights Protection in Papua – Is Australia a Reluctant Neighbour?
By Budi Hernawan
The recent fatal shootings in Papua by
the Indonesian authorities are not novel. Rather, they are the latest
in an ongoing pattern of human rights abuse. The gravity of the
crackdown in the context of which the shootings occurred has been
emphasised not only by local human rights groups but also by the UN
High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay. In a public statement released
just two days after the shootings, she said she was disappointed to see
‘violence and abuses continuing in Papua’, and she described the latest
incidents as ‘unfortunate examples of the ongoing suppression of
freedom of expression and excessive use of force in Papua.’ Such a
prompt response from the highest UN official dealing with human rights
sends a clear signal that the violence in Papua is by no means a low
priority on the UN’s human rights agenda.
In claiming that ‘[i]nternational human
rights law requires the Government of Indonesia to conduct thorough,
prompt and impartial investigations into the incidents of killings and
torture and [to] bring the perpetrators to justice’, Pillay invokes the
fundamental responsibility of all states to protect their own citizens.
No longer conceived as absolute immunity
from external scrutiny, the concept of state sovereignty has been
reconceptualised in terms of rights protection. The doctrine of the ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P)
recognises that ‘the primary responsibility for the protection of its
people lies with the state itself’, but it also assumes that the
international community has a responsibility to protect populations
which are suffering serious harm either at the hands of the state
itself, or where the state is ‘unwilling or unable to halt or avert’ the
harm. In upholding its responsibility to protect, the international
community recognises not only the possibility of taking collective
action under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, but has also committed
itself (A/RES/60/1, para. 138-140)
‘to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful
means…to help to protect populations’, and to ‘helping States build
capacity to protect their populations’.
The unpunished crimes against humanity in
Papua in the last half a century indicate complete impunity of the
Indonesian state. This pattern reflects Indonesia’s failure to fulfill
its responsibility to protect its own people. Given this, the
international community, including Australia, has a responsibility to
act, pursuing a range of forms and levels of engagement with Indonesia.
Otherwise, Australia ignores the warning
of the former special adviser to the UN Secretary General on Genocide
Prevention, Juan Mendez, when he cited indigenous Papuans as ‘at risk of
extinction’.
An open letter to Bob Carr,
the Minister for Foreign Affairs, signed recently by 37 Australian
academics, was written in the spirit of the responsibility to protect.
Geographically, Australia is Papua’s closest neighbour. As the ongoing
impunity remains unresolved, it is Australia’s responsibility to provide
international assistance and capacity building to ensure Indonesia’s
capacity to fulfill its responsibility to protect Papuans. Two major
points raised in the petition to Bob Carr are the need to ensure the
accountability of Indonesia’s security sector, and the need for conflict
resolution through peace talks between Papua and Jakarta. Both of these
goals must be actively and honestly pursued by Australia if it is to
uphold its claim to be a committed member of the international community
of rights recognising states.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar