What Does It Mean to Be an American Now?

John Mohawk

Americans see themselves as hard-working, honest people, dedicated to family and community, and they're right. As a nation, Americans are religious, generous, and tolerant of others.

But there is a darker side to the American character, as evidenced by the enslavement of Africans and the abuses of American Indians and expropriation of their lands. Since the end of World War II, the US government has systematically used force and coercion overseas to maintain access to energy and raw materials. In doing so, it has supported brutal dictatorships and the harsh treatment of many peoples in countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Iran, and Iraq. The US has been willing to use its power to insure not only that the oil keeps flowing but also that American and other G-7 companies control production and pipelines. In recent years, the United States has become the primary advocate of economic globalization, a policy that takes advantage of international debt to privatize assets and dismantle local economies, thus impoverishing small farmers and exacerbating world hunger. Yet most Americans know little about the destructive practices carried out in their name.

But there are also examples of positive projections of American power and influence that exemplify a less self-centered and more generous side of America, ranging from flood and earthquake relief efforts to interventions intended to avert genocide and ethnic cleansing. Throughout its history the United States has shown two faces: one that's peaceful, promoting justice and self-determination, and one that's selfish, defining its national interests in ways that promote suffering and brutality abroad.

A culture of grievance

Those who bombed the World Trade Center and the Pentagon committed criminal acts that are condemned by the world. But their apologists say they were motivated in part by US-led sanctions against Iraq that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of Iraqi children. Those who support the sanctions argue that they are necessary because of the potential for further terrorism by Iraq's Saddam Hussein. America's detractors in the Islamic world point to the injustices that resulted from our history of intervention in Middle Eastern countries. This version of history has become part of a Culture of Grievance, which has supplied the energy for movements such as Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network.

The result has been a feeling not only of domination but of humiliation in many parts of the Islamic world, a feeling anthropologist Anthony A.W. Wallace describes as “stress.” When a society cannot manage stress, when feelings of injustice and oppression lead to desperation, people will create movements to relieve the stress. Wallace designated these as “revitalization movements.”

Sometimes the movement adopts highly ethical strategies that reject injustice, oppression, and violence, as did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mahatma Gandhi. But unfortunately, cultures that experience difficulty coping with stress often rationalize the use of violence, even genocide or ethnocide, as necessary to create the kind of “better” world they envision. When they take this path, extreme enthusiasm for the imagined outcome and belief in the righteousness of their cause can take them, and others, into great danger. The First Crusade at the end of the eleventh century, for example, resulted in the deaths of an estimated two-thirds of the knights who crossed Anatolia on foot and ended up massacring the non-Christian population of Jerusalem. Such movements often continue to inspire violence and destruction long after their authors are dead and the institutions that carried them forward have been destroyed.

The power of fairness

On at least two occasions the United States managed such movements positively and successfully, in ways that suggest strategies to restore justice to everyone involved. On these occasions, the US turned away from using its economic and military might to achieve dominance and adopted strategies with a win-win agenda.

The first occurred shortly after the American Revolution, when American settlers in Shawnee country in Ohio were engaged in continued armed conflict with the Western Confederacy, a military alliance of Indian nations that included the Delaware, Shawnee, Miami, Potowatomi, and other nations. In 1790, President George Washington, hoping to keep Seneca warriors from joining the Western Confederacy forces, initiated conversations with Cornplanter, a Seneca war chief. Cornplanter explained that the Seneca were deeply distrustful of the Americans, especially New York State, because of shady land deals and the fact that murders of Indians by whites were not prosecuted. In response, Washington secured passage of the 1790 Non-Intercourse Act, in which the United States guaranteed that Indian nations would not be cheated by the states in land transactions.

In 1791, the United States suffered a serious defeat at the hands of Miami war chief Little Turtle. Responding to public dismay at this defeat, President George Washington proposed something never tried with Indians: fair treatment. Under the Fair Treatment Policy, Indians would be offered a fair market price for land and guarantees against being swindled by the states. George Washington and the American government asked the Seneca to act as intermediary with the Western Confederacy in spreading word of this policy. War chief Cornplanter and other Seneca leaders, motivated by a belief in the United States' offer of fair treatment to the Western confederacy, decided to help. At considerable danger to themselves, Seneca delegates carried the offer of fair treatment to the Western Confederacy.

But the promise of a rational end to the violence was short-lived. Great Britain had not yet withdrawn from seven military posts in the Northwest Territories (as promised in the treaty of Paris). British intelligence operatives had old scores to settle and little interest in peace on the frontier, so they worked to frustrate negotiations.

The Western Confederacy, emboldened by success on the battlefield, rejected the offers and replaced Little Turtle, who had argued for peace, with Turkey Foot, who was prepared for war. The United States Army under Mad Anthony Wayne, in its first successful campaign, defeated a Western Confederacy force at the battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. This phase of the war ended with the Treaty of Greenville the following year.

Nevertheless, the Fair Treatment Policy had a powerful effect on the Seneca Nation. Shortly after the battle at Fallen Timbers, the Seneca and other member nations of the Six Nations Confederacy signed a peace treaty at Canandaigua. Conditions of change and a sense of loss of a way of life engulfed the Seneca in the years that followed.

In 1799, Handsome Lake, a prophet, led a revitalization movement that ultimately led the Seneca to agriculture and away from the warpath. The Fair Treatment Policy inspired those who wanted peace. Handsome Lake found a special place for George Washington on the road to heaven, and the Six Nations never went to war with the United States. Some years later, during the War of 1812, the Seneca living in New York fought alongside the Americans against the British invaders.

But again, the peace did not last long. In 1823, the US Supreme Court, unable to find a basis for a claim that the United States owned Piankeshaw land, invented the “political question doctrine.” This doctrine promised that the Court would not interfere in what amounted to a land theft perpetrated by the US government. It was the beginning of a very dark chapter in American history. From that time on, raw exercise of power became the primary theme of US–Indian relations.

The power of rebuilding

A second time the United States took positive steps to defuse a revitalization movement came at the end of World War II, the most destructive event in human history.

Hitler came into power during the years following World War I when Germany, under pressure to pay war reparations, felt oppressed by its enemies and betrayed from within, allegedly by the Jews. The Nazis offered a way of dealing with these stresses.

At the end of World War II, the United States "enjoyed a moment of unprecedented popularity. And, with an unusual generosity of spirit and enlightened self-interest, the US launched the Marshall Plan, which offered grants, not loans, to rebuild the industrial countries whose economic base had been devastated during the war. At about the same time, the US championed the principle of decolonization, under which European nations were encouraged to emancipate their overseas possessions. Much of the leadership displayed during the post-war years consisted of attempts to avoid past mistakes like the war reparations that had played a prominent role in the collapse of German banks at the beginning of the Great Depression. The Allies created international banking and monetary institutions that could intervene to halt devastating economic downturns. They also created the United Nations, an institution dedicated, in principle, to peace.

America, defender of justice?

The modern radical Islamic movement can be traced to the discontent of the 1930s over how the European nations had divided up the Ottoman Empire. But its sense of endangerment first surfaced in the 1950s, when some clerics began to write and preach about the immorality rampant in the West and the corrupting effects of western ways on Islamic lands. The West, with its technology and cultural globalism, promised a material utopia on earth; the clerics, by contrast, preached that virtue and morality and devotion to Allah must come first, not hedonism and crass materialism. Their utopian vision centered on the creation of an Islamic state.

Islamic fundamentalism is hostile to sexual liberation, western forms of entertainment, and women's rights. Islamic fundamentalists blame the West for their problems, including the corrupt and repressive regimes in some Islamic countries, and embrace a long list of grievances, real and perceived, from western support of the state of Israel to American troops based in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda movement is but one of a number of radical groups dedicated to the violent expulsion of the West from the lands of Islam and the creation of an Islamic state or states.

The massive US retaliation against Afghanistan destroyed bin Laden's base of operation and his network, but it gave permission to other states, including India, Russia, and Israel, to escalate violence against their enemies, now universally dubbed “terrorists.” The destruction of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan does not ultimately address the future of terrorism because it has not addressed the root causes.

Root causes

US intervention in the internal political affairs of countries over the course of recent decades can't be undone with good intentions. But a number of things can be done. We have already seen how policies like the Marshall Plan and the Fair Treatment Policy decreased stress and promoted self-realization in positive ways. These kinds of actions enabled people to sustain or regain their dignity, embrace hope, and make practical improvements in their lives while avoiding undue cultural coercion. The kind of self-sufficiency that can work must be built on peoples' own cultures, religions, and values under a policy that is an honest effort to help.

No country should be left to the kind of hopelessness and chaos that was and is Afghanistan following more than 20 years of war. Left to a state of anarchy, such countries become breeding grounds for corruption and hate and, as we have seen, traffic in social evils from drugs to weapons of mass destruction. The US and other G-7 countries should take steps to help countries like Afghanistan regain self-sufficiency, especially food self-sufficiency, as quickly as possible. But they should do it in a way that preserves the small farmers that comprise most of the population and builds the strength of the local economy rather than creating dependency on outside loans and corporations. International peacekeepers should be deployed to make roads safe and to intervene in drug trafficking. Emergency food relief must be provided until there are signs of local success. This effort should be international in scope and should involve Moslem and other countries in a demonstration of America's desire to work with other peoples. That demonstration is as important as the humanitarian aid.

Next, there needs to be a sustained effort to de-militarize the country and clean up the land mines, without waiting for a gas or oil pipeline as the incentive. That kind of development can wait until Afghanistan has enough political integrity to make its own decisions.

Most important, the United States must lead a worldwide effort to promote justice and fairness, and to discourage oppression and prejudice. The sense of humiliation and oppression that gives rise to regressive revitalization movements should be replaced by humanitarian aid and honest efforts to promote justice and equality. We might think of it as a kind of worldwide Fair Treatment Policy—something that has not been tried energetically since the Marshall Plan. It would involve increased use of international legal standards that could move toward universal human rights for tribal groups, religious and racial minorities, women, and others, and opportunities for all to create economic foundations that meet their needs.

Americans must urge these principles upon our friends as well as our enemies or they will be meaningless. The United States, as a signal of its role as a responsible member of the world community, should sign international treaties such as the Kyoto Accords, the land mines treaty, and the Treaty on the Rights of the Child, and become a champion not only of democracy but also of justice. Fairness is one of the hardest principles to follow, but an honest effort to treat people justly and fairly would go a long way toward regaining the trust of the world community. If the United States can regain its status as defender of the high-minded principles that gave rise to the United Nations, repressive states, symbolized by Afghanistan under the Taliban, will decline in popularity. Then we might find that peace is not so elusive after all.***

Read More.....

Is Freedom Just Another Word?

John Mohawk

It is a positive development that Americans are encouraged to revisit, and hopefully revise, an anomaly in the way the culture views its history. It has been said, erroneously, that America does not have, or does not follow, a philosophy of history. This is, regrettably untrue, especially in the case of what has been called the “American consensus.” It goes like this: Long ago, the founding fathers fought for the rights of man: freedom, liberty, equality, and, first among the descendants of Europe's monarchies and oligarchies, democracy. These rights, as they said in the Declaration of Independence, were “self evident,” meaning they were obvious. These rights, which by implication had already existed but were denied the founders, had their origins in, of all places, nature. They were natural rights.

Those who succeeded the founders expanded the claims quite dramatically. Because the founders had pursued such lofty rights, the United States alone of the world's nation states had been designated with the goal of freeing the world's peoples, of spreading democracy, of creating a new and utopian world.

American historians do not challenge this consensus. It is a kind of defining cultural consensus, similar to the way people in the Middle Ages believed there was a physical or physical-like place called heaven and people who died went there. They believed this much as people today believe there are islands in the Pacific, although no one have ever been there (heaven) and returned and plenty of people have been to Pacific islands and returned. The American consensus about not only what the founders were about but what their project meant has enjoyed this kind of immunity from challenge among mainstream American historians. If you were a Medieval European, you would not challenge theories that heaven existed just beyond the clouds and you could be sure that you did you could be subject to punishment for doing so. It is the same here, except the model stretches a modern person's credulity.

Whether or not the founders were to be commended for pursuing lofty ideals, the assertion that they were entitled to special immunities from normal expectations of the limits of human behavior –- that they were immune to the laws of nations – has led to such horrifying peculiarly American inventions as manifest destiny and American exceptionalism. The argument has been that when American commits crimes against humanity, it is excused because its ancestors were engaged in a struggle for freedom and democracy which would eventually free humankind from oppression.

This idea is obviously a very difficult sell among the peoples of the world because it asks them to suspend disbelief about other and possibly less noble motives but to grant that the United States can never be wrong or engage in unacceptable acts as long as it continues to generate rhetoric about its inheritance of goodness from its founding ancestors. The very root of the conversation begs revisitation.

When 9/11 happened, it was said, “They hate our freedoms.” Those would be the freedoms secured by the founders. The word “freedom” is, as many have pointed out, problematic. A condition in which a people are free must be preceded by one in which such freedom is absent. When the American Revolutionaries challenged the British Crown, they were surely seeking relief (freedom) from something. Was it freedom to assemble, freedom to petition against grievances, freedom from taxation, freedom from unjust surveillance, freedom to dissent, freedom against imprisonment without charges and the right to face an accuser? Does the fact (if it is fact) that two centuries ago America's political ancestors fought for such principles give today's American politicians the right to impose their will on other peoples in other cultures? It is not a simple yes or no, up or down, question. A good argument can be made that the United States can find principles within its traditions supporting human rights and opposing genocide and a list of other crimes against humanity, but a question needs to be raised about when and how such a project can change from liberation to oppression. The American consensus, including the idea of our country, right or wrong, is not a conversation about how to achieve the goals of the founders. It is exactly the kind of thing the founders struggled against the British crown over in 1776.***

Read More.....

The Times Interview - West Papuan activist Septer Manufandu

Howick and Pakuranga Times - Times Newspaper Online

SEPTER Manufandu was born into the Biak tribe on a small island in the north of West Papua, a territory under the control of Indonesia but with a significant native population. They moved to Jayapura, and he grew up in the high mountain areas of central Papua. After studying agriculture the University of Cendrawasih, he moved onto become the secretary of Folker, an umbrella group coordinating West Papuan nongovernmental organisations. Here to campaign against kwila wood the oppression of native Papuans, Septer spoke to the Times about the environment in Papua and its people’s struggle.

What relationship does the tribe have with the forest?

Papuan people consist of 356 tribes and most live close to the forest. Papua has lowlands, highlands, wetland areas and coastal and marine areas. 50 per cent of Papuans live in high mountain areas and 68 per cent live close to the forest.

Were you dependent on the forest growing up?

Yes. My parents went to the forest for food all the time. Cutting down sago palms, making traditional fires, planting sweet potatoes, animal hunting and getting fish from the river.

What changes have you seen there over your lifetime?

Logging companies have come and occupied people’s land and clear cut the forest. Papuan people live in the forest, but forest land is all controlled by government. It is difficult for Papuan people because all their activities in the forest and coast are their main traditional activity.

What have the tribes lost?

They lose food, they lose animals and traditional medicines and they lose culture because in the forest they implement traditional culture. It’s their home. Their perspective is the forest is their mother. The mother can give everything. It can protect, give food and give life. We believe every indigenous people have a perspective and local wisdom. But so far the Indonesian government has not recognised their rights. When we talk about rights it is very difficult because in Papua there is a stigma from the government and military: “You are separatists!”

So you have no voice?

Papuan people already established their organisation to amplify talking about their rights, the forest, and their land. When Papua got the special autonomy law in 2001, it says there is decentralisation of government and talks about rights, how to recognise, protect and empower. But seven years later it’s not effective. Nothing has changed.

What kind of trees are being taken? We lose many kwila because permits were given in 1984 to 68 companies. Now 15 still operate. In 2005 our report showed illegal logging occurs all over Papua. It reaches 600,000 m3 (cubic metres) a month and the logs are exported illegally.

Who are the companies?

Mostly foreign: Malaysian, Chinese and others. They operate outside the concession. The government gives a legal permit, and then they go outside that area. But illegal or legal are both causing destruction and deforestation.

The military is connected with all of this?

Yes. All activity from logging companies comes through the military.

What do you want New Zealand to do? Stop buying kwila. Support indigenous people. Destruction of the forest is like killing people because they lose everything. They cannot have food, they can’t get water. Logging companies pollute the water too. I also met people from the Maori Party and the Green Party in Wellington. We are learning about Maori people’s conditions here for information and how their strategy was established.

How does the Folker (non government organisations forum) work? What are you doing?
We were created to establish advocacy on 6 major issues: human rights abuses, natural resource problems, good governance, women and child health and HIV Aids. We have 64 member groups. Folker functions to establish policy and a voice for Papua outside about our problems.

What progress has been made?

We prepared a legal draft on the special autonomy law. We’ve tried to do research on the ten regencies in Papua.

Are Papuan people involved in NGOs?

Yeah, we have good relationship with them.

It sounds a bit like an alternative government, because they have no relationship with the central government?

Yes, yes.

What about the migration issue (of Indonesians into Papua)? We call it a ‘demographic disaster’ in Papua. In 1971 Papuan people were 96 per cent of the population, but in 2005 they were 59 per cent and non Papuans 49 per cent. We estimate in 2030, Papuans will only be 15.2 per cent of the population. We are becoming a minority in Papua. There is a paper on it by James Elmslie called “Genocide by Demographics”. I want to talk about the social impact. Mortality of women and children is very high in Papua; the health service is very bad. HIV is very high. It’s 2 per cent of the population, comparable to the problem in Papua New Guinea.

Are there signs of progress?

We have groups in Australia, in Jakarta, and in Finland for Europe. They help our situation. Last year the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights visited. Now we are trying to get groups to advocate for the position of Papuan people within Papua. We are trying to describe the Papuan position and work out how to take the next strategy since the special autonomy law. It’s a strategy for us, for NGOs and church organisations. We’re trying to look at all problems. But human rights abuses are very sensitive in West Papua.***

Read More.....

Oleh : Tengget Digoel - The Boven Digoel Post

Tanah Merah Digoel, Bodipost - Masih ingatkah anda akan aksi pembasmian rakyat Papua melalui Biomiliterisme (Peracunan makanan dan minuman) yang digelar Tentara Nasional Indonesia dan Polisi Republik Indonesia (TNI-Polri) di hampir seantero Papua beberapa waktu lalu? Kejahatan yang sukses mengantar ratusan orang Papua ke liang kubur dan ratusan lainnya mengalami gangguan kesehatan serius itu ternyata belum sepenuhnya dihentikan karena rupanya daya pembasmi dan dampak hukumnya dinilai lebih efektif ketimbang menggunakan senapan mesin. Di Boven Digoel, sebuah wilayah yang rakyat pribuminya pernah menjadi sasaran Operasi Biomiliterisme, sejak tiga bulan terakhir ini beredar sebuah minuman beralkohol dengan nama Aleksander.

Minuman Aleksander dibuat oleh TNI-Polri dan beberapa orang pengusaha non Papua melalui sebuah usaha yang bersifat patungan. Pabrik mereka didirikan secara tersembunyi di Assikie (area HPH Korindo Group). Menurut sebuah sumber BodiPost, bahan dasar minuman Aleksander adalah Air Hujan, Miras Jenis Robinson (RB), Alkohol 100%, Cairan zat tertentu (namanya belum diketahui) dan Teh Celup sebagai pewarna. Cara membuatnya, semua bahan dasar tadi disatukan dalam sebuah baskom atau loyang kemudian diaduk sehingga bahan dasarnya tercampur secara baik dengan rasa dan aroma yang bisa membangkitkan selera para pemabuk.

Masih menurut sumber tadi, label Miras Aleksander dibuat di Jakarta hanya untuk menipu pembeli seolah-olah pabriknya ada di Jakarta. “Para pembeli biasa tertipu, mereka pikir Aleksander dibuat di Jakarta oleh sebuah pabrik tertentu dan dipasarkan di seluruh Indonesia, padahal pabriknya ada di Assikie, dikelola secara bebas oleh TNI-Polri dan Miras jenis ini hanya dikhususkan untuk masyarakat Papua yang ada di kabupaten Boven Digoel,” ujarnya menjelaskan.

Selama tiga bulan terakhir, peredaran minuman Aleksander sangat marak di wilayah ini, terutama di Ibu Kota Tanah Merah dan sangat meresahkan penduduk setempat karena kadang-kadang penjualnya memaksa dan mengintimidasi penduduk agar membeli Miras jenis ini. Di hampir seluruh pelosok kota Tanah Merah, ribuan liter minuman Aleksander dipasarkan secara gelap oleh Intelijen TNI-Polri dari berbagai kesatuan dan benar-benar telah menelan korban jiwa.

Dari penelusuran BodiPost, semua korbannya tidak ada satupun yang non Papua. Semuanya orang Papua, pribumi Boven Digoel. Korban-korban ini langsung meninggal dunia setelah mengkonsumsi Aleksander. Mereka adalah (1) Geradus Omba, asal suku Wambon, warga Kampung Persatuan, Tanah Merah; (2) Fransiskus Kabagaimu, asal suku Yahray (Mappi), warga Kampung Sokanggo, Tanah Merah; (3) Ferdinandus Metemko, asal suku Muyu, warga Kampung Sokanggo, Tanah Merah; (4) Abraham Waken, asal suku Muyu, Kampung Sokanggo, Tanah Merah. Para korban ini meninggal dunia setelah mengkonsumsi minuman Aleksander yang dijual oleh Intelijen TNI-Polri.

Sedangkan ratusan korban lainnya tidak meninggal dunia tetapi mengalami gangguan kesehatan yang cukup serius. Pada umumnya mereka mengalami gangguan pernafasan, gangguan pencernaan, sakit kepala berkepanjangan, gangguan ingatan, disfungsi seksual, gangguan pengelihatan (gejala kebutaan), sakit tulang, nyeri pada lutut (gejala lumpuh) dan berkurangnya nafsu makan. Mereka mengalami gangguan kesehatan setelah mengkonsumsi Alexander dan beberapa jenis Miras lainnya seperti RB dan Cap Tikus.

Mahalnya biaya pengobatan akibat penghisapan Pemerintah Kabupaten atas rakyat setempat lewat sektor kesehatan dan infrastruktur kesehatan yang tidak memadai seperti dijanjikan para pejabat dalam kampanye-kampanye politik mereka turut menambah beban bagi para korban maupun keluarga mereka yang harus putar-otak mencari biaya pengobatan dan pemulihan kesehatan.

Beberapa suster dan mantri asli Papua yang tidak lagi mampu membungkus kejahatan TNI-Polri mengatakan bahwa para korban yang menderita sakit ini (nama-nama mereka masih didata) diperkirakan kondisi mereka tidak akan stabil seperti sebelum terserang racun yang sengaja disebar lewat minuman Aleksander, RB dan Cap Tikus.

Sampai berita ini ditulis, minuman Aleksander masih dijual secara bebas tetapi karena dampaknya yang fatal, para pembeli beralih membidik Miras jenis lain seperti RB dan Cap Tikus. RB dan Cap Tikus diketahui tidak bisa langsung menyebabkan kematian seperti Aleksander. Kedua jenis minuman ini dipasok dari Merauke, Timika dan dari luar Papua oleh TNI-Polri dan pedagang gelap lainnya yang dibeking TNI-Polri. Beberapa saksi mata menyebutkan, untuk memudahkan penyelundupan dan menghindari pemeriksaan di depan publik, Miras selundupan ini selalu diangkut bersama logistik Militer TNI-Polri melalui jalur darat, laut maupun udara sehingga tidak ada satupun petugas yang boleh memeriksa.

Salah satu pedagang gelap yang dibeking TNI-Polri secara berlapis adalah istri bupati Yusak Yaluwo, Ny. Ester Lambey Yaluwo. Ketua Dharma Wanita kabupaten Boven Digoel yang sering dijuluki “Mama Boven Digoel” ini merupakan pemasok terbesar RB dan Cap Tikus yang langsung didatangkan dari Manado. Ia secara diam-diam telah meraup keuntungan yang besar dari bisnis gelap yang bersifat merusak ini.

Dilihat dari peluang bisnis, wilayah pemasaran dan konsumen yang ada, rupanya wanita Manado ini akan terus dengan leluasa mengembangkan bisnisnya untuk meraup keuntungan yang tidak sedikit dari hancurnya mental generasi muda, konflik keluarga, gangguan kesehatan yang serius dan kematian rakyat setempat akibat mengkonsumsi RB dan Cap Tikus yang dipasok secara langsung dari tanah leluhurnya dan dipasarkan secara bebas di tanah leluhur suaminya.

Sejumlah kalangan berprediksi bahwa bisnis Miras yang ditekuninya mempunyai prospek yang sangat cerah. Bisnisnya dipastikan akan meroket dengan omzet yang meningkat dari hari ke hari diiringi dengan jumlah korban yang pasti terus berjatuhan karena dirinya mendapat dukungan modal, jalur bisnis gelap, keamanan, jaminan hukum dan propaganda media massa untuk putar-balik fakta.

Dukungan ini diperoleh dari suaminya sebagai orang nomor satu di kabupaten Boven Digoel, sebuah kabupaten yang mempunyai reputasi jelek karena manajemen pemerintahannya amburadul, korup, rasis dan anti rakyat pribumi.***

Read More.....

Ten Oil Palm Companies to Expand to Papua

Bisnis Indonesia

JAKARTA: Papua, a region called Dutch New Guinea in the colonial era, has been 'controlled' by 10 big plantation companies in the last two years.

Of the total area size of 352,651 hectares (ha), 85,654 hectares have been seized by several business groups, such as state-owned plantation PTPN II, the Sinarmas Group, the Korindo Group, and the Raja Garuda Mas (RGM) Group, to expand their oil palm businesses.

The big private plantation groups have also controlled some companies in Papua, such as PT Tunas Sawah Erma (the Korindo Group), Sumber Indah Perkasa and Sinar Kencana Inti Perkasa (PT Sinar Mas Agro Resources and Technology Corporation/ Smart Tbk), and Bumi Irian Perkasa (the RGM Group).

Until 2007, Smart had controlled 125,190 hectares of oil plantation areas in Sumatra (62,410 hectares) and Kalimantan (62,780 hectares).

Asian Agri controls over 160,000 hectares of oil palm plantations in Indonesia, while the Korindo Group, operating in the Asiki district, the Boven Digoel Regency, targets to develop 50,000 hectares of oil palm plantations.

Since 1989, Korindo has been developing oil palm plantations.

Currently, the Korindo group has already had 10,000 hectares of areas and has started production with two plants, each with a capacity of 30,000 tons of oil palm per hour.

Korindo has been allocating its oil palm to meet domestic needs and is still focusing on developing oil palm in Boven Digoel [in the south of Papua, near the PNG border].

In the meantime, the company also develops 50,000 hectares of industrial timber estate in Central Kalimantan and plans to open up an oil palm industry there.

Director General of Plantation at the Department of Agriculture Achmad Mangga Barani claimed the directorate general had mapped out land conditions and statuses.

"The Department of Agriculture' s Research and Development Agency has completed the development map for Papua. The map can show us areas potential for certain commodities, " he said recently.

Based on the map [for Papua], he continued, the Department of Agriculture would give recommendations to the local governments regarding new plantation area developments, especially those made by 10 companies.

Of the ten companies, eight have interests in the oil palm plantation sector, while the two others, PT ANJ Agri Papua and PT Nusa Ethanolasia, have interests in sago plantation.

Achmad added the total size of plantation areas in Papua reached 458,551 hectares consisting of 352,651 hectares of oil palm plantations, 5,900 hectares of cocoa plantation, and 100,000 hectares of sago. Of the total size, 32,571 hectares of areas had been planted.

According to him, the map showed there were 1.72 million hectares of areas potential for plantations, namely for oil palm plantations (885,140 hectares), cocoa plantations (305,855 hectares), coffee plantations (143,658 hectares), rubber plantations (81,098 hectares), and sugar cane plantations(268,782 hectares).

Yapen Islands [West Papua]

Separately, Regency of Yapen Islands [West Papua] Daud S. Betawi Soleman disclosed his regency had 123,596 hectares of areas potential for plantation.

"The Directorate General of Plantation will make our region as a pilot project for the integration of cocoa plantation and cow and pig farms. Regarding the size and the cost, those will depend on the government," said Daud after meeting with Director General of Plantation Achmad Manggabarani in the latter's working room yesterday. (Bisnis/et/arh)

______________

[ Free West Papua Campaign comment: Is TIME magazine's "Hero of the Environment" , Governor of Papua, Barnabas Suebu, protecting West Papua's forests, or helping Indonesia to destroy them? ]

Read More.....