Written Statement of Mr Octovianus Mote
to the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission (TLHRC) of
the US Congress hearing on Human Rights in Indonesia
on 23 May 2013
Introduction
This written statement
not only summarizes the deteriorating human rights situation in West
Papua
(Indonesia), but more importantly outlines the urgency for the
international community to take action to find a peaceful solution
to the longest unresolved conflict in the Pacific. The main argument
of this statement is that under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P)
framework, the international community should take an immediate
action to stop the ongoing crimes against humanity in West Papua.
This argument will be summarized to frame this statement.
The rest of the
statement will discuss two major interrelated parts. First, it
elucidates facts and figures that have led to the conclusion of the
urgency of an international intervention to assist the Indonesian
state in fulfilling its responsibility to protect. This exposition
will be followed by a brief analysis of the critical development of
peace initiatives since 2011. This part explores possibilities to
build peace in West Papua in the long-run by way of initiating peace
talks between Jakarta and Papua. The statement will conclude with
recommendations.
The responsibility
to protect (RTP): a brief summary
The ‘responsibility to
protect’ (R2P) recognizes 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 recognizes 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.’
Status of human
rights in West Papua
Indonesia is a
signatory to the major international human rights treaties and
conventions, and the Indonesian House of Representatives have passed
a number of important human rights laws which protects Indonesian
citizens. The international conventions Indonesia is party to
include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR),
the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),
the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the Convention of Elimination
of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and the Convention of the
Rights of the Child (CRC). Important domestic laws include Law
39/1999 on Human Rights and Law 26/2000 on Human Rights Courts. Just
like the US, so too Indonesia prefers to be assessed based on its
own laws. For our purposes this legal framework provides us with
clear sets of criteria to assess the status of human rights in West
Papua.
| |
West Papuans continue to feel alienated and
discriminated against; the Indonesian
administrations feel obliged to commit extensive
resources to defend its isolation policy; and the
international community continues to question this
policy given Indonesia’s claim as a multiparty
democracy.
|
Both national and
international sources have closely monitored the current status of
human rights in West Papua. While some diplomatic missions in
Jakarta (e.g. the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia,
Japan, New Zealand, the Netherlands) are permitted to regularly
visit West Papua, representatives of the UN human rights mechanisms
and international scholars and journalists are often prevented from
visiting the territory. This fact not only suggests a policy of
isolating of West Papua from international audience, it illustrates
the degree of sensitivity of the Indonesian authorities towards this
particular region. This policy, however, does not help anyone
because West Papuans continue to feel alienated and discriminated
against; the Indonesian administrations feel obliged to commit
extensive resources to defend its isolation policy; and the
international community continues to question this policy given
Indonesia’s claim as a multiparty democracy. More importantly, this
policy does not help address the protracted conflicts in Papua. On
the contrary, it simply sweeps the burning issues under the carpet.
This observation is
not only based on my own assessment. A number of international
monitoring bodies have produced similar conclusions. The U.S. State
Department,
for instance, is among the few foreign governments who closely
monitor the status of human rights in Papua and publishes it in its
annual report on Indonesia. The amount of information about Papua
presented in the report is generally much greater than that on any
other area in Indonesia. This fact illustrates the high level of
awareness of the U.S. administration of events on in West Papua.
Furthermore, the annual report suggests the degree of resources that
the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta has allocated to adequately monitor the
development of human rights situation in West Papua over the years.
From an NGO
perspective, “Faith-based Network for West Papua,”
a joint collaboration of local and international NGOs, produces an
annual report that covers civil and political rights, as well as
economic, social and cultural rights. This report is presented to
the UN Human Rights Council and elsewhere. Other groups regularly
issue reports and alerts about human rights violations in West
Papua.
Foreign governments,
the international community, and the United Nations are well
informed of what is going on in Papua. Then why is the international
community has not taken any action to stop crimes against humanity
against Papuans? The international community, particularly the U.S.
administration, cannot pretend that they are not informed. Then,
what is the purpose of publicizing the human rights situation in
West Papua every year?
It is not the
objective of this statement, however, to answer those questions.
Rather, the following discussion will summarize the current status
of human rights in Papua in order to reiterate the urgency to
address the continuing crimes against humanity. Various reports
record that in the last five years the human rights status of Papua
has not significantly improved or been adequately addressed. On the
contrary, the Papuan rights remains fragile and unprotected.
First is the problem
of habeas corpus. This ancient principle reminds us of
people’s fight and victory against the monarchs in the European
middle ages where the monarchs assumed power over people’s bodies.
The recurrence of reported cases of torture and extra-judicial
killings illustrate the degree of state penetration into the
personal integrity. Torture by state authorities, in particular,
remains prevalent although this crime is preventable. In a similar
vein, ongoing extrajudicial killings underscore the continuing
practice of state brutality against civilian Papuans.
For example, from 30
April and 1 May 2013 many Papuans marked the 50th
anniversary of the transfer of administration of West Papua from the
United Nations Temporary Executive Administration to Indonesia. With
a heavy handed approach, the Indonesian police and army shot dead
three people in Sorong and injured three others. In Timika, the
police dispersed the protesters and arrested and detained civilians
after they took to the street to commemorate the historic moment of
the transfer of administration of their country 50 years ago. The
forceful reaction from the Indonesian security apparatus invoked
worldwide reaction. Papuan students organized a number of rallies in
Jakarta and elsewhere in Indonesia. In Australia, Papuan and joined
by Indonesian students released a joint press statement condemning
the attack against civilians. Moreover, Australian academics raised
their concerns to the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs urging
the Australian government to act.
The UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, released a statement
just two days after the incident. 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 a 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.
This reality is
exacerbated by the fact that these crimes are rarely punished,
perpetuating the cycle of impunity. The level of impunity has been
so entrenched for so long that the Indonesian judicial system is
unable to penetrate it. One of the latest examples is the court
hearings on the torture case filmed, leaked and distributed on
YouTube
in 2010. There were two separate incidents captured in the footage.
The first part depicts eight Papuan highlanders stripped in front of
two Indonesian army soldiers. But only two of the victims were
identified under the names of Kotoran Wonda and Dipes Tabuni. While
interrogating these terrifying Papuans and calling them ‘monyet,’
‘anjing,’ or ‘bajingan’ (monkey, dog, bastard), the
soldiers kicked their heads with their army boots and punched them
with their helmet. The soldiers demanded they confess to being
members the Papuan ‘separatist’ movement OPM. The second footage
shows two Papuan highlanders being tortured. Telangga Gire (30) had
a knife at his throat and Tunaliwor Kiwo (50) was burnt on his
genitals by members of the Indonesian army questioning them about
the location of Free Papua Movement (OPM/Organisasi Papua Merdeka)
weaponry near the highland town of Mulia.
The leak prompted a
wave of international public reaction pressuring the Indonesian
government to address these atrocities. Instead of showing its usual
resistance to bow to public pressure, the Indonesian government
responded fairly quickly. Courts martial to hear the cases were
established in early 2011 in Jayapura, the provincial capital of
Papua. As a result, seven soldiers
were found guilty and sentenced to jail for five to ten months.
These modest sentences for three of the soldiers were reduced on
appeal to three months.
The court, however, did not find them guilty of torture or assault.
Rather, they were found guilty of “not following orders.” Similarly,
the court found the commandant of the group guilty and sentenced him
to seven months again not for torture. Rather, because he
“deliberately provided an opportunity to his subordinates to not
follow his orders.” As the verdicts fixed on the matter of
“following orders,” the court martial failed to recognize torture as
a form of state-sponsored brutality. (In fact, torture is not banned
under Indonesian law.) To make it worse, the court did not actually
try the cases of Kiwo and Gire.
Rather, it only dealt with the cases of Dipes Tabuni and Kotoran
Wonda from the first part of the video who were tortured because
they were accused of being commandants of the OPM.
These verdicts go to
the essence of this statement. It opines that torture in Papua
constitutes a state-sponsored crime and has become a mode of
governance as revealed by new research done at the Australian
National University in Canberra, Australia.
Torture, however, is not the only coercive method that is frequently
employed by the Indonesian security services to intimidate civilians
in Papua and across Indonesia. The Indonesian state apparatus has no
hesitation to use killing, surveillance, arbitrary arrest and
detention, and disappearances.
The high level of
state violence together with impunity and denials have put Papuans
as one of the nations at “risk of extinction” as described by Juan
Mendez, the former Special Adviser to the UN Secretary General on
genocide prevention.
Analysis from the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights
Clinic Yale Law School in 2002
had earlier suggested the possibility of genocide occurring in West
Papua. In a similar vein, an Australian researcher from the Centre
for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney examined
the demographic shift in Papua which have marginalized indigenous
Papuans.
| |
The risk of extinction is higher if we combine
state-sponsored violence with the minimal public
services available for the Papuans. Although West
Papua is the third largest income earner for
Indonesia, Papuans have to survive on very minimal
public services.
|
The risk of extinction
is higher if we combine state-sponsored violence with the minimal
public services available for the Papuans. Although West Papua is
the third largest income earner for Indonesia, Papuans have to
survive on very minimal public services. The latest report of the
Indonesian Bureau of Statistics
ranks Papua at the bottom of the Indonesian National Human
Development Index during 1996-2011 (15 years!). Papuans are at the
bottom of the country in average years of schooling, life
expectancy, and per capita income. These facts pose a serious
question of the effectiveness of the 2002 Special Autonomy in
addressing the basic needs of Papuans. That is why Papuans
symbolically returned the Special Autonomy package to the central
government during a massive rally in 2010. The Governor of
Yogyakarta Sultan Hamengkubuwono X, one of the most respected
Indonesian government officials, recently said that “The Special
Autonomy which simply relies on economy and security is proved
failed to provide prosperity for Papuans despite the provision of
the USD 28.3 billion funds from 2001-2011.”
Instead he proposed that the central government concentrate on
building trust with Papuans before talking about economic
development.
The confusion and
overlapping policies are reflected in different conflicting
decisions such as the splitting off of the Province of West Papua
from the existing Province of Papua through a presidential decree.
This decision contradicts the Special Autonomy Law, which says that
any new province can only be established through the Special
Autonomy mechanism, not by a presidential decree. Legally, the
latter has a lower status than a law (e.g. the Special Autonomy
Law). In a similar vein, pemekaran (the creation of new local
governments/regencies) has exacerbated the policy confusion and more
importantly seriously undermined the ability of local governments to
deliver high quality public services to Papuans.
In other words, the
authority to govern Papua has not been transferred fully to the
local government of Papua as the spirit and the letter of the
Special Autonomy Law stipulates. Rather, the central government
continues to retain essential elements of the authority which hamper
the ability of the local government to function properly. This
situation worsened when in 2011 the Yudhoyono administration
established Unit Percepatan Pembangunan Papua dan Papua Barat
(UP4B), a task force mandated to accelerate development in Papua and
West Papua Provinces.
With a very broad mandate but limited authority, this unit has found
it extremely difficult to fulfill its own promises to Papuans. The
gap between promises and reality is not novel to West Papua but at
the same, exacerbates Papuan distrust towards Jakarta.
The policy confusion brings about serious consequences in the Papuan
daily life. For instance, local governments are unable to provide
the Papuan market women with a proper market space despite the
affirmative policy towards Papuans. Their demand for a market space
in the city of Jayapura remains unresolved despite the election
promise of the mayor (who is himself indigenous Papuan) to build a
permanent market for the women.
Solpap,
a local solidarity network that works very closely
with the Papuan market women, continues to provide moral and lobby
support for the women. The network’s support maintains and nurtures
the consolidation among the women and put pressure on the Jayapura
mayor to fulfill his promise.
We can easily find a similar story from the public health sector. A
recent outbreak of malnutrition has caused at least 95 lives in the
newly establish district of Tambrauw and 61 lives from the District
of Yahukimo. Both local
and national
media presented the figures which met a strong denial from the
Minister of Health.
This approach illustrates the ways the government deals with
life-threatening situation which constitutes one of the major
priorities of the Special Autonomy.
This above description provides us with a good representation of a
worrying situation of Papuans who are at risk of extinction. This
picture requires an immediate action to stop the crimes against
humanity, but there is enormous reluctance from the international
community to become involved in lasting solutions. Perhaps as a
feasible alternative, the following discussion will offer ideas
which requires further follow-up.
Promising signals
of peace negotiations?
There are a number of
promising signals that need international supports to be able to
pave the way to a more concrete step towards a peaceful solution.
Early in 2012 the President of Indonesia, Dr Yudhoyono, publicly
expressed his willingness to engage in serious dialogue with Papuans
when he met with Papuan church leaders in Jakarta. He expressed this
on two separate occasions, suggesting that he was committed to
ending conflicts in Papua once for all. However, it has been a year
now and we have yet to see any follow up to this commitment.
Instead, the Indonesian police and military continue to conduct
intensive and destructive operations in West Papua.
| |
On the West Papuan side, we have embarked on peace initiatives initially agreed
during our Congress in 2000 in Jayapura. We explicitly and unanimously endorsed
using only peaceful means in the struggle for our rights.... In other words, the
pursuit of a peaceful solution to the seemingly intractable conflict in West
Papua is more than desirable. It is rooted in our deep conviction.
|
On the West Papuan
side, we have embarked on peace initiatives initially agreed during
our Congress in 2000 in Jayapura. We explicitly and unanimously
endorsed using only peaceful means in the struggle for our rights.
Since then various elements of the Papuan community have engaged in
peace campaigns, including church leaders, political leaders,
student movements, women’s groups, and even the Papuan freedom
fighters. In other words, the pursuit of a peaceful solution to the
seemingly intractable conflict in West Papua is more than desirable.
It is rooted in our deep conviction. This belief has become the
fountain of our struggle for peace.
For instance, since
2009, an indigenous Papuan Catholic priest, Father Neles Tebay,
established Papua Peace Network to specifically promote the idea of
dialogue between Jakarta and Papua. In conjunction with the
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), he organized public
consultations with the public throughout Papua to gather feedback on
the idea of dialogue between Jakarta and West Papua. The findings of
this effort were presented to top government officials, but their
response remains limited and far from enthusiastic.
Despite this limited
response, the Papua Peace Network successfully organized an
important Papua peace conference in 2011. During this conference, a
senior Indonesian cabinet minister delivered a speech representing
the government’s position on dialogue. It was at this event that
some 500 Papuan representatives democratically elected myself and
five others as the Papuan peace negotiation team. The other members
are Leonie Tanggahma, Rex Rumakiek, Dr. John Ondawame, and Benny
Wenda.
All of us are Papuan leaders living in exile and based in different
parts of the world.
In early 2012, our
negotiation team began a collaboration with the Peacebuilding
Compared Research Project
at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, Australia.
This collaboration is helping us develop our capacity in lobbying
and negotiations. One of its achievements is the establishment of
our secretariat at ANU to provides us with logistical and research
support.
Nonetheless, a peace
accord remains distant and the chance to embark on peace talks with
the Indonesian government remains fragile. This fragility lies in
the fact that President Yudhoyono has not yet concretely implemented
his .
His long delay has had a tremendous impact on the status of human
rights and human security in Papua. For instance, we regularly to
receive reports of police brutality. The treatment of the Papuan
political prisoners serving sentences in prisons in Papua remains
dire.
The Indonesian government has resisted proposals for UN human rights
investigators to visit Papua; Visits by international scholars,
journalists, some diplomats and others to the territory are also
restricted.
To address the
fragility and urgency, it is important that the international
community to play a proactive role to implement its responsibility
to protect. In the context of Indonesia, peacebuilding and the
involvement of the international mediation is not novel. On the
contrary, the Indonesian experience has benefitted tremendously from
international mediation. For instance, during the Indonesian
decolonialization process in 1940s, the involvement of the U.S. and
Australia contributed to securing the transfer of sovereignty from
the colonial power Netherlands to Indonesia. The UN played a major
mediating role in ensuring East Timor’s right to self-determination.
More recently, Indonesia benefitted from the international
intervention to end the Aceh conflict. The intervention of Finland
greatly contributed to the negotiations that culminated in the
signing of the Helsinki Agreement, in 2005.
Renegotiating relationship between Jakarta and Papua is the key to
resolving the conflict in Papua in the long run. More importantly, a
peace accord would contribute to peace and stability not only to
Papua and Indonesia as a whole, but also in the Pacific region which
contains other fragile states.
| |
Renegotiating relationship between Jakarta and Papua
is the key to resolving the conflict in Papua in the
long run.
|
My conviction and
analysis is not entirely new. I have drawn empirical studies of
prominent international scholars who describe the effectiveness of
peace negotiations, even when they fail. I present to you here two
most recent examples: Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan’s study on
nonviolent resistance and the 2012 Human Security Report.
Chenoweth and
Stephan’s quantitative study sheds new light on the effectiveness of
nonviolent resistance
(Chenoweth
& Stephan 2011). Based on
323 case studies worldwide from 1900 to 2006, their research shows
that nonviolent resistance was successful in 53% of cases in
achieving the objectives of a resistance movement compared to only
26% of armed struggles. The core factors in the success of
nonviolent methods are their ability to cause the defection of state
security forces to take the side of nonviolent movements and to
mobilize broad participation from the general public. In the Papuan
context, however, causing the defection of the Indonesian military
(TNI) to the Papuan cause would be very difficult. Another part of
their argument is that nonviolence attracts more sympathy and
support from the international community than violence which
eventually contributed to the effectiveness of nonviolent
resistance.
In a similar vein, the
2012 Human Security Report
from Simon Fraser University provides us with the most recent
examples of the effectiveness of peace accords in ending armed
conflict. The report examines four different ways to end conflicts
during the period of 1950-2004: peace agreement, ceasefire, victory,
and other forms of conflict terminations. The report showed that the
effectiveness of peace agreements in ending conflict is slightly
lower (32%) than ceasefires (38%). But the report also demonstrates
that “although peace agreements are less stable than victories, they
lead to a much greater reduction in battle deaths.” The research
finds that more than an 80% drop in death tolls after peace
agreement even if the agreements fails and conflict restarts. This
effect does not apply to all other types of terminations. Over all,
a peace agreement is empirically more effective in stemming violence
by addressing root causes of violence. This process has resulted in
the dramatic drop of death tolls.
These studies give us
good grounds to argue that in the long run nonviolent resistance in
Papua, particularly the call for peace dialogue, is more likely to
succeed than violent resistance. It is a matter of time. But as
these studies reveal, the international community must play a
significant role as a catalyst of peace processes. Now is the time
for the U.S. Congress to act and to endorse Papuan peace
initiatives. We cannot afford to sacrifice more lives for solvable
conflicts like Papua.
In 2010, the House
subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific held the first ever
congressional hearing on West Papua. The hearing was organized by
Congressman Eni Faleomavaega to examine “Indonesia’s deliberate and
systematic abuses in Papua.”In line with Sultan Hamengkobuwono X, I believe that
peace negotiations will be a starting point to stop violence and to
rebuild Papua, although the negotiations may not be able to
immediately solve the problems of the market women or poor
healthcare. Nonetheless, the sign from President Yudhoyono of his
willingness to engage with Papuans is both encouraging and
undermining. It is encouraging because it illustrates how a
protracted conflict can be resolved peacefully. But it is also
undermining our trust to Jakarta as the promise has a little
reality. This situation resonates with the responsibility of the
international community to act on its R2P.
'Conclusions and
recommendations
'Therefore, we present
you the following recommendations to consider:
-
To pass a U.S. Congress resolution urging the
U.S. government to exercise its responsibility to protect in
order to end crimes against humanity against West Papuan people;
-
The same resolution should urge the Indonesia
government to begin good faith negotiations with the Papua peace
team with mediation by an international party;
-
To support the Papuan peace team with
logistical and research support through U.S.-based research and
think tank institutes in order to develop its capacity to
represent Papuans at peace negotiations;
-
To request the U.S. administration to provide
moral, political and necessary logistical support to the
Yudhoyono administration to initiate peace negotiations with the
Papuan peace team;
-
To condition U.S. security assistance to
Indonesia on ending human rights violations in West Papua and on
whether the Indonesian government is negotiating in good faith
with the people of West Papua.
Appendix
The Papua Peace
Negotiation Team
The Papua Peace
Negotiation Team was directly and democratically elected by Papuans
during the Peace Conference organized by the
Papua Peace Network in Jayapura in 2011. Since 2012, the team
has worked very closely with the
Peacebuilding Compared research project at the Australian
National University led by Professor John Braithwaite. The team is
mandated to represent Papuans in political negotiations with the
Indonesian government.
Ms Leonie
Tanggahma is a daughter of the late Ben Tanggahma, Minister for
Foreign Affairs in exile of the Republic of West Papua which was
unilaterally proclaimed by the Free Papua Movement (OPM) in the
1970s. She was a liaison officer of the Papuan-based human rights
NGO ELSHAM in Europe, assisting in regular representation of the
Papuan case at United Nations forums such as the Working Group on
Indigenous Populations, the Commission on Human Rights (now the
Human Rights Council) and its sub-commission. At present she works
as a document management assistant in an international organization
based in the Netherlands.
Mr Octovianus
Mote is the former head of Papua Bureau of Kompas, the
largest Indonesian daily. Following the meeting between 100 of
Papuan leaders and President B.J. Habibie in 1999, he left Papua for
exile in the US due to death threats by the Indonesian security
services. Granted asylum and US citizenship, since then he has
tirelessly lobbied the US Congress and the US government on the
issue of human rights in Papua and Indonesia more broadly. He is
currently Tom and Andy Berstein Senior Human Rights Fellow at Yale
Law School. He is the secretary of the Papua Peace Team.
Dr Otto
Ondawame is the Vice Chairman of the West Papua National
Coalition for Liberation. He was born in 1953 in Wanamum,
Mimika
Regency, in
West Papua.
Ondawame was a member of the OPM and went into exile in 1979. He
obtained his
PhD
degree in
political
science from the
Australian
National University in
Canberra
in 2000, an
MSc
degree from the
University of
Western Sydney in 1995,
Graduate
Diplomas from the
University of
Sydney in 1994 and
Uppsala
University in 1986 and a
Bachelor of
Arts degree from
Cenderawasih
University, West Papua, in 1976. Ondawame was a
recipient of the 2001 Reconciliation Award, bestowed by the
Australians Against Execution group, and the 1972 President
Suharto Award for Academic Excellence. In 2000, Ondawame joined
the West Papua Project at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies
of the University of Sydney as project coordinator. Currently he is
Coordinator for International Relations for the West Papua National
Coalition for Liberation operating from its office in Port Vila,
Vanuatu.
Mr Rex Rumakiek,
born in Biak, is Secretary General of the West Papua National
Coalition for Liberation (WPNCL) and former head of the
Decolonisation Desk of the Pacific Concerns Resource Centre, Suva.
He lives in Canberra.
Mr Benny Wenda,
born in Papua Central Highland, is the leader of the Koteka
Tribal Assembly. He lives in exile in Oxford, the United Kingdom. In
2003 he was granted political asylum by the British Government
following his escape from custody while on trial in West Papua.
See Hernawan, Y.B. 2013, “From the Theatre of
Torture to the Theatre of Peace: The Politics of
Torture and Re-imagining Peacebuilding in Papua,
Indonesia” a PhD dissertation at the Australian
National University, Canberra, Australia.
Elmslie, Jim, 2010. “West Papuan Demographic
Transition and the 2010 Indonesian Census:
‘Slow Motion Genocide’ or not?” Sydney: Centre
for Peace and Conflict Studies of the University
of Sydney.
The Peacebuilding Compared research project is
led by Distinguish Professor John Braithwaite.
It will cover up to 48 country cases. The
research will analyze peacebuilding strategies
from diverse contexts in search of keys to
effectiveness. Restorative and responsive
regulatory theory, useful in many other domains,
will be tested on unique data on governance of
peacebuilding. Each case will also stand alone
as a contextually rich account of successes and
failures of peacebuilding in that nation. The
next stage of the project will focus on 20 Asian
and African case studies, with funding from the
Australian Research Council Discovery Scheme.
See
http://regnet.anu.edu.au/peacebuilding-compared/home
|
