AKUI
INFID | TAPAK Ambon | AKUI
| PosKo Zwolle | Diverse Artikelen
Introduction AKUI (Humanitarian Action for Indonesia - Aksi Kemanusiaan untuk Indonesia) is working together with other organisations met in
INDONESIA HOUSE on Saturday 13 April 2002 in order to hold a discussion with the
theme "Security Protection for IDPs and Humanitarian Activists in
Indonesia." The discussion was attended by 25 individuals and representatives of a
number of organisations, including RpuK (Relawan Perempuan untuk Kemanusiaan)
Aceh, activists from Titaney (who have been, inter alia, assisting
IDPs in Maluku) and Dutch MSF. The discussion lasted 3 hours and a number of conclusions and recommendations were made to the Indonesian Government (GOI), International State Organisations, International NGOs and Indonesian
NGOs working within and outside of Indonesia. Background The GOI's obligation to assist IDPs in Indonesia (whose total number
at the end of 2001 reached 1.4 million people) has been half-hearted and
ineffectual. In September 2001, the GOI stopped the daily needs assistance for the
IDPs, and then two months later, it very ambitiously announced that it would
completely resolve the IDP problem in the whole of Indonesia by the
end of 2002. The ambitions of the government of Indonesia were announced with
little or no thought or clear co-ordination. Officially, IDPs are the
responsibility of Bakornas (National Co-ordination Body - Badan Koordinasi Nasional)
which thus far has no clear regulations as to how to deal with the IDP
problem. Initially this body was established only to handle natural disasters
such as land- slides, floods etc. However, under Presidential Decree No.3 Year 2001, authority was given to Bakornas to co-ordinate and receive funding
from the international community and disburse it via local government and
associated agencies as determined by the both central and local government. Aside from Bakornas there are also regulations and organisations at
national and local level which clearly regulate IDP issues. One of them is the Implementing Co-ordinating Body for Natural Disasters and IDPs (Badan Koordinasi Pelaksana
Bencana dan Penanganan Pengungsi - Bakornas PBP) which is headed by the Vice President and other ministers. In their handling of IDPs, they rarely involve NGOs and the people themselves. The whole
process is centralised and elitist, which denies participation of the people
from the grassroots. Another factor which renders the situation increasingly
chaotic is the ad hoc nature of co-ordination between government agencies in the
field, the appropriation of funds intended for the IDPs by government
officials and the fact that the process for handling IDPs does not defer to the
internationally recognised Basic Principles on Internal Displacement. This includes
the often violated and important matter of security protection for the IDPs and themselves and humanitarian activists. Existing legislation referring to the protection of IDPs during armed
conflict within a state is covered by the International Convention for
Humanitarian Protection. The contents of this international legislation offer a
broad range of protection from the threat of violence, outlaws the intimidation of
civilians, prohibits the starvation of civilians and the destruction of their
possession as a method of war. Within the
context of internal armed conflict, the IDPs are protected by article 3 of the 4th Geneva Convention which is
reiterated in Protocol II. None of the points outlined above yet to be implemented. This is
evidenced by the large number of violations which occur in the handling of IDP
issues both in terms of protection procedures, relocation and repatriation as well as
the disbursement of aid and assistance. In addition, the GOI has yet to
ratify Protocol II of the Geneva Convention, with the result that it makes it
difficult for the international community to participate actively in the
handling of the IDP problem in Indonesia. Another stumbling block in the implementation of international
humanitarian legislation is the matter of National Sovereignty which renders
intervention by the international community in an effort to provide protection to the
IDPs. Given this limitation, the UN is only in a position to negotiate and
apply political pressure in respect of the violation of human rights abuses
and the rights of IDPs and refugees that are violated by the state in
question. This reality makes advocacy and concrete protection of IDPs difficult,
and more so within the context of Indonesian national legislation in which
to date, the issue of protection for IDPs and refugees has yet to be addressed. In other words, IDPs are not protected by existing legislation in Indonesia,
and moreover in a number of cases it is government security forces that
are taking part as an element of the conflict.
In the end, the matter of security guarantees for IDPs in Indonesia has yet to be seriously addressed. This is
because if the state in question has not or has yet to implement legislation which
have been outlined within the basic principles of IDPs, then the matter of IDP
protection remains a question mark. Results of the Discussion Horizontal and Vertical Conflict As has already been referred to in the introduction, in general all
areas that experience large-scale conflict in Indonesia, is both horizontal and
vertical in character. Thus, members of the Indonesian security forces, (TNI and
police) - if they are not directly implicated in the ongoing conflict, then they
should be offering protection to
Indonesian citizens (IDPs and humanitarian activists) - are rather often the ones who are taking an active role in the
destruction, intimidation and killing. In Aceh, as we know, the IDP problem emerged when DOM (military operational area - daerah operasi militer) was implemented. Since
then, numerous acts of violence have ensued, such as stop and search by
military against suspected GAM (Free Aceh Movement - Gerakan Aceh Merdeka). This is also the excuse the TNI used in order to carry out numerous
acts of violence such as killings, scorched earth policy etc. On the other
hand, GAM have also placed the civilian population in the forefront of the
fighting. This very difficult situation as resulted in hundreds of Acehnese
seeking refuge from violence of their villages, but the reality is that having moved
to other locations to see protection has rarely rendered their day to day lives
any safer. This is because on the one hand, the TNI perceived the IDPs as being
an element of GAM. That is why
searching operations within the IDP camps by members of the security forces are often accompanied by acts of
violence. In this situation if is really difficult to ask for protection from
either the TNI or the police. Similar conditions are evident in other conflict areas in Indonesia,
to varying degrees. For example, in GOR Pasuma Pontianak, where the Madurese IDPs
settled after the Sambas violence, members of the security forces
carried out arrests whenever there was unrest outside of the camp. At one stage,
with the concentration of people in the camp, the level of fear as well as
attacks continued to rise. This is despite the fact that in general, the
inhabitants of IDP camps are in the main women and children. The Ignoring of the Geneva Convention and Guiding Principles on IDPs In Indonesia, basic principles concerning IDPs are as yet completely
unknown. Thus far, it is only humanitarian activists that are aware of and
understand the contents of the basic principles.
And then it is almost impossible to try and implement these principles in the field, with the result that the
Guiding Principles on IDPs is nothing more than a few sheets of paper which
have no meaning. The GOI has not once made any effort to implement the
principles, a reality that is evidenced by the intimidation perpetrated during
relocation of IDPs. A case in point was the relocation of the IDPs from GOR Pasuma Pontianak to Tebang Kaca at the end of May last year. Given that the
Jakarta Government has no respect for the IDP Guiding Principles, then you can
imagine what happens at local government, military resort command
(Korem) and military district command (Kodim) level. Efforts to try and socialise the Guiding Principles on IDPs have been
carried out for quite some time. A number of Jakartan NGOs have translated the
Guiding Principles on IDPs into Indonesian. But even with an
Indonesian version, the principles referring to IDPs were difficult to explain.
Being aware of this, under an OCHA initiative, a new version was drafted and
published in the form of a comic. But whatever form it was distributed in, members of the discussion
group are still pessimistic about the likelihood of the Guiding Principles on
IDPs being taken on board. The main
problem does not in fact lie in the understanding of the principles, but rather on the moral and political will of the GOI,
the TNI and the police when facing and dealing with the IDP problem. Conclusion Based on the fact that the Guiding Principles on IDPs do not have any
power of sanctions, then it is important that we must discuss and formulate
a different approach. An approach which is
able to exert pressure on the GOI to pay more attention to the IDP and humanitarian activist question (both in terms
of protection as well as their rights which thus far have been violated
or ignored). One such approach is to create conditions which will lead to the
ratification of the Geneva Convention Additional Protocol by the GOI. And this must
involve civilians and IDPs in the decision making process in respect of legal
authority, and also in respect to the matter of security guarantees for
humanitarian activists during their work with IDPs. And it ratified, then efforts
to put moral pressure on the GOI as a result of the ongoing humanitarian problems
with have more concrete standing. Efforts to push the GOI into ratifying the Geneva Convention
Additional Protocol, at the latest by the end of this year, have already been
made by the ICRC, but have thus far been unsuccessful. Moreover, the
implementation of the Geneva Convention Additional Protocol is dependent of the
political will of the states in question. It is therefore necessary to devise mechanisms
that will ensure implementation. One alternative that has been suggested is that
this may be done via the International Criminal Court (ICC). Within the ICC, NGOs may be able to have a greater role.
According to RPUK, the people of Aceh want something along the lines of the ICC - both the victims
themselves as well as their families. A consequence of choosing the ICC will be the necessity of accurate
and continuous information as well as major campaign at international
level. Details of the perpetrators of Human Rights Violations who usually
enjoy impunity - should be widely published. Organisations concerned with humanitarian issues and human rights in Indonesia should be active in
the lobbying of a number of international organisation and NGOs who are in
a position to apply pressure to the GOI. Another alternative suggested during the discussion was in the form of
synchronised direction action against the perpetrators of violence by
NGOs who are located both within and outside of Indonesia, for example a
fax- campaign reminding and calling for action to the Korem or Kodim or
other armed organisations who perpetrate acts of violence. In some cases, as has been proven in Maluku, this method can be effective. Because using
this method, it is not only the GOI that is lobbied, but also the Kodim and
Korem located in remote areas, who will be reminded that every human rights
violation perpetrated in their jurisdiction is being monitored by the
international community. However, a condition for this to be effective is an efficient and
co-ordinated communications network between people abroad and the activists in the
field. If information cannot be circulated, then the network will be very
weak. RECOMMENDATIONS to the Government of Indonesia * Stop political violence in
efforts to resolve conflict * There must be
accountability and transparency in the resolution of IDP cases in Indonesia * Give access to
international agencies and NGOs who work in the area of IDPs * The resolution of the IDP
problem must be done with the full participation of the IDPs themselves, the
local community as well as with local NGOs. RECOMMENDATIONS to the
Parliament of the European Union and State Organisations * Exert pressure on the
Indonesian Government to immediately ratify the Geneva Convention
Additional Protocol * Expert pressure to try
individuals who have taken part in killings, violence etc in conflict areas
anywhere in the world * The problem of
communications networks and information sharing between conflict areas and the outside world. * Communications networks and
information sharing in a number of conflict areas in Indonesia have been problematic. There are many reasons for
this, including the isolated location of the conflict area where
communications technology is limited, and the intentional isolation of victims as has
been occurring in Aceh. * In addition, in conflict
areas where the military has private interests (Aceh, Papua and Maluku) the security factor is also something which must be
taken into consideration, because the network on the ground is likely to
become a target of violence and assassination. * In Aceh, a number of
alternative ways to maintain contact with the outside world have been tried. Satellite telephones have been one choice. RpuK owns two sat-phones, but one has recently been confiscated by the military,
and activists who make contact with the outside world have been arrested
and imprisoned, after their communications have been intercepted by
military interception and listening devices.
Thus communications between the conflict area and the outside world represent a major challenge which must be overcome. Conclusion * It is necessary to hold a
more specific meeting in order to discuss such matters, and to invite more experts in the field. Funding is also required. RECOMMENDATIONS To the Humanitarian NGO Community in the Netherlands and Europe * Improve communications
networks both to Indonesian and between Dutch and European agencies * Coordinate lobbying work
and campaigns in Europe * Hold a strategic action meeting
for the whole European network * More lobbying and
publication of documents in respect of IDPs and humanitarian work,
particularly in respect of Protection and Security. RECOMMENDATIONS to Indonesian NGOs * Establish a more continuous
communications network with all the European networks * Send accurate information
which is important to distribute to the European people * Stimulate the formation of
people's organisation of the IDPs themselves so that they are able to be
more independent. * The lack of involvement by
International NGOs in terms of real needs in conflict areas * The arrival of
International NGOs such as Save the Children, ICRC, Oxfam, MSF etc to several conflict areas in Indonesia have given hope to both
the IDPs themselves and the humanitarian activists. However, this hope has
often never developed into reality, as has been the case in Aceh and Maluku.
This is because whenever there are armed exchanges on the ground, the
international NGOs leave. * Another matter which makes
life difficult for humanitarian activists in the field is the exclusive and arrogant impression which a number of
International NGO activists leave when they go into the field. In general, international NGOs which go into the field are only implementing short-term programmes
which local people are not aware of, how long they will last and what
follow-up there will be. They are often slow in responding to the real needs of the
IDPs and implement their programmes without involving local NGOs. International NGOs also tend to work together with the Government of GONGOs in comparison to working together with local NGOs and the local
community. * Often, without consulting
with local NGOs and the IDP communities themselves, international NGOs carry out their programmes which are
not relevant to actual needs. One example is Maluku, as expressed by
Titaney. An international NGO came with seeds to be planted in Maluku. They
announced that this was a programme to develop the local economy. But the seeds
could not be planted because there was not one piece of land which was
appropriate for planted owned by the IDPs or to which they had access. * In Aceh, international NGOs
often interfere with working mechanisms which have been established - and not without some difficulty - by local
NGOs. One example is the distribution of food aid by an international NGO to an
IDP camp where RpuK are active. The
RpuK activists were distributing food aid not only to the IDPs but also to the local community in the surrounding
area. This was in order that the local community in the surrounding area did not
develop feelings of envy towards the IDPs for receiving food aid, when they
did not. In a number of conflict areas, where IDP camps have been established,
this has often become a problem, resulting in further conflict. (The Sambas
Incident: 1998-2000 in West Kalimantan is an example. Sambas is a location where
the Madurese IDPs settled after the Sanggu-Ledo conflict between the Dayak
and the Madurese in 1996. Because
of the GOI's incompetence in setting up the camp, conflict emerged between the Sambas community and the IDPs, and which resulted in hundreds of victims). * On seeing what the RPUK
activists were doing, a number of international NGO activists told the IDPs that the funds which were intended for them
were being diverted to the surrounding community. Of course conflict emerged
which disrupted the work being carried out by humanitarian workers. * Despite problems that have
emerged with the arrival of international NGOs, this does not mean that involvement by international NGOs has not
positive value. The arrival of the
internationals is very important within the context of the political situation and military pressure which is strengthening
in Indonesia. This is important particularly in the prevention of further violence
against IDPs by members of the security forces. Often in areas where International
NGOs operate, the security forces are more careful. Conclusion * Bearing in mind the matters
outlined above, International NGOs are asked to become more involved in long term programming which is rooted within
the IDP community itself as well as members of the local communities
surrounding the IDP camps. * Also, international NGOs
shouldn't only work with the government and GONGO's, but should also become more involved with local NGOs, or at
the very least improve communications with an increased number of relevant
organisations. The approach
adopted by international NGOs thus far has resulted in a bias in the way the real needs of the people are
responded to. RECOMMENDATIONS to
International Organisations and International NGOs * Make more efforts to
cooperate and coordinate with local NGOs, IDPs and local communities when
planning and implementing their work in the field. * Be more transparent to
local NGOs, IDPs and local communities in the planning and implementing
of their work.. AKUI- Aksi Kemanusiaan untuk Indonesia Humanitarian Action For Indonesia Postbank : 741548 Kvk. 3410743 Address: Indonesia House Jacob van Lennepkade 255, 1054 ZS Amsterdam, Tel.: 020-7774949,
Fax: 020-7774948 E-mail : akui@xs4all.nl Stichting TitanE |