What about West Papua? It’s our Ukraine

 04 March 2022, AMICHAEL KABUNI | Academia Nomad

PORT MORESBY - It took less than a week for the world to come together to condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Sanctions were applied to Putin, oligarchs and the Russian Central Bank, there was a suspension of SWIFT banking services and weapons and aid money were supplied to Ukraine.

But the question many are asking, especially in the Pacific Islands, is what about West Papua?

West Papua has been illegally occupied by Indonesia since 1963. Brutal abuse and human rights violations have continued unabated since then and are endemic.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission said on Tuesday that:

“….between April and November 2021, we received allegations indicating several instances of extrajudicial killings, including of young children, enforced disappearance, torture and inhuman treatment and the forced displacement of at least 5,000 indigenous Papuans by security forces.”

The UN knows what is happening, so the obvious question is why isn’t the UN, European Union, United States or Australia doing anything about it?

The issue is complex, and I want to talk about just one, and probably the most important, aspect: the geopolitical benefits of pleasing Indonesia.

Indonesia has been and is an important ally of the US and Australian, the two powers with the highest stake in the region.

During the Cold War, the theory of the ‘domino effect’ of Communist ideology spread through South-East Asia.

Indonesia was an important ally of the West against communism and it actively suppressed Communism.

To please their ally, the US and other Western countries left Indonesia to occupy West Papua following the so called Act of Free Choice, branded as ‘Act of No Choice’ by many people.

It was a form of referendum where about 1,000 representatives of West Papua were forced to sign a document integrating West Papua into Indonesia.

Today the same countries are worried about the rise of China. And they continue to ignore Indonesian atrocities in West Papua.

Southeast Asian countries need US help to stand up against China so remain silent. India has border conflicts with China so it remains silent. Japan has its own conflicts with China, and Australia values Indonesia as an ally.

There are rumours that China sympathises with West Papua, although it appears ironic that a Communist country with a poor record of human rights would be sympathetic or human rights abuses in West Papua.

The reason could be that Indonesia has claims over some parts of the South China Sea which China considers its own and that Indonesia has criticised China over its imprisonment of Muslim minorities.

There are allegations that China maintains a modern day labour prison camp for an estimated one million Muslim Uyghurs. China calls it a re-education camp.

Indonesia, the largest Muslim nation on earth, has condemned China over this issue and rumours started emerging that China then decided to support West Papuans.

It looks like a classic case of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

In the Pacific, only Vanuatu has consistently supported West Papua’s independence and spoken up in the UN.

Papua New Guinean, which shares a 700km land border with Indonesia, has been very cautious. Indonesia has huge standing army compared to PNG.

Countries in the region have called for commission of inquiry into West Papua, but it has never taken place.

Further calls to allow journalists into West Papua have been ignored. In the absence of an international presence, Indonesia controls the narrative.

So here is how world politics seem to play: If there is an invasion or occupation or atrocities against a group of people that affects the interests of the West, and the US in particular, there is condemnation and action.

The difference between Ukraine and West Papua is that, in Ukraine, Russia is the aggressor.

Russia is the enemy of the West. So the invasion is considered illegal and killing civilians in Ukraine amounts to war crimes.

In West Papua, the same or even worse has been occurring for over 70 years. Buts it’s been carried out by an ally of the West.

Unless the geopolitics in the region change and US and its allies no longer need Indonesia, it seems the West will continue to ignore West Papua.

It’s possible that one day China can step up its support for West Papua.

There’s no help from Australia, which also supplies arms to the Indonesian military.

The Pacific Islands countries are the only realistic voices. They have to do what Vanuatu has been doing.

UN court rejects UK’s claim of sovereignty over Chagos Islands

The Guardian – Judges advise Britain that separating archipelago from Mauritius in 1960s was wrong

The UK has been ordered to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius “as rapidly as possible” after the United Nations’ highest court ruled that continued British occupation of the remote Indian Ocean archipelago is illegal.

The case was referred to the court, which hears legal submissions over international boundary disputes, after an overwhelming vote in 2017 in the UN assembly in the face of fierce opposition from a largely isolated UK.

Delivering judgment, the president of the ICJ, Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, said the detachment of the Chagos archipelago in 1965 from Mauritius had not been based on a “free and genuine expression of the people concerned”.

“This continued administration constitutes a wrongful act,” he added. “The UK has an obligation to bring to an end its administration of the Chagos archipelago as rapidly as possible and that all member states must co-operate with the United Nations to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.”

Judge Yusuf, who is a Somali, said the process of separating the Chagos Islands from Mauritius during decolonisation in the 1960s constituted an “unlawful detachment” and was a “wrongful act”.

The UK retained possession of the Chagos archipelago, which includes the strategic US airbase of Diego Garcia, after Mauritius gained its independence in 1968, effectively paying Mauritius more than £4m for the islands.

The government refers to it as British Indian Ocean Territory or BIOT. About 1,500 native islanders were deported so the largest island could be leased to the US for the airbase in 1971. They have never been allowed to return home.

In its submission to the ICJ last year, Mauritius argued it was coerced into giving up the Chagos Islands. That separation was in breach of UN resolution 1514, passed in 1960, which specifically banned the breakup of colonies before independence, lawyers for Mauritius said.

The UK government argued that the court it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The ruling will be referred back to the UN general assembly, where it will be debated.

The assembly vote in 2017, following the Brexit referendum, revealed the UK’s international influence to be on the wane, with many EU countries failing to support a fellow member state and even traditional allies such as Canada abstaining.

The UN general assembly is now expected to deal with the question of the resettlement of the Chagos Islanders who have been expelled.

The judgment represents a significant defeat for the UK on virtually every point it contested in the hearing last September.

By a majority of 13 to one, the court found that the decolonisation of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed and that it must be completed “as rapidly as possible”. The only judge dissenting from the main opinion was an American.

The court’s recommendations are expressed in remarkably forthright terms and represent a fresh challenge to the UK’s standing in the UN.

A Foreign Office spokesperson said: “This is an advisory opinion, not a judgment. Of course, we will look at the detail of it carefully. The defence facilities on the British Indian Ocean Territory help to protect people here in Britain and around the world from terrorist threats, organised crime and piracy.”

Welcoming the ruling, the Mauritian government said it was a “historic moment in efforts to bring colonialism to an end, and to promote human rights, self-determination and the international rule of law”.

Mauritius’s prime minister, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, said: “This is a historic moment for Mauritius and all its people, including the Chagossians who were unconscionably removed from their homeland and prevented from returning for the last half century. Our territorial integrity will now be made complete, and when that occurs, the Chagossians and their descendants will finally be able to return home.”

Namira Negm, legal counsel of the African Union, which played an important role in the proceedings, said: “It is unthinkable that today, in the 21st century, there is a part of Africa that still remains subject to European colonial rule.

“The full decolonisation of Mauritius, and of Africa, is long overdue. The ICJ has made it clear that this must be accomplished today and not tomorrow. Only then the Africans can be free and the continent can aspire to live free of colonialism.”

Prof Philippe Sands QC, who represented Mauritius at The Hague, said: “The court has given a crystal-clear verdict, which upholds the rule of law. This is a historic and landmark judgment. It will be for Mauritius and the UK to sit down and implement this advisory opinion.

“It will be for Mauritius now to decide on the resettlement of the islanders. There’s no veto at the UN general assembly. It will decide how to go forward with the matter. There’s no question of the UK coming up with new arguments: their arguments were put forcibly and well.

“It’s difficult to imagine the UK as it moves forward into this Brexit world, ignoring what the international court of justice and the UN general assembly have said. The UK is a country which prides itself on respect for the rule of law. Our hope and expectation is that the UK will honour the ICJ’s findings and give effect to it as rapidly as possible.”

David Snoxell, coordinator of the all-party parliamentary group in the Chagos Islands, said: “This is a searing indictment of the UK detachment of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 and its subsequent defence of that action. The UN general assembly must now decide what to do about this post-colonial legacy, including the human rights of the Chagos Islanders.

“Opinion in the UN and the Commonwealth is highly critical of our policy towards Chagos. The UK’s reputation and human rights record suffer. Litigation costs to the taxpayer multiply. HMG [Her Majesty’s government] should seize the opportunity to engage in serious discussions with Mauritius for an overall settlement. There is no defence, security, political or legal reason to delay it any longer.”

Damian Gonzalez-Salzberg of Sheffield University’s Centre for International and European Law, said: “With the sole dissent of Judge Donoghue [from the US], the court confirmed the stance supported by the majority of states that intervened in the proceedings: the right to self-determination was part of customary law already in 1960.”

Tweet

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2BSLPGO
via IFTTT February 26, 2019 at 10:12AM