In a statement which has just reached TAPOL, the Amungme people - Amung Ne Sorei - express their gratitude to the National Commission for Human Rights for undertaking investigations into the evidence of human rights violations collected by the Bishop of Jayapura. The report concluded that violations did indeed occur from October 1994 to June 1995.

However, as the ones who have been victims of the consequences of the presence of Freeport Indonesian Company (FIC) in our area, we are fully entitled to make our own assessment of the Report:

1. The title of the Report is: 'Findings of the Investigation of Five Incidents in Timika Sub-district and an Incident in the village of Hoea, Irian Jaya (West Papua), from October 1994 till June 1995.'

(a) A correction is in order because there is no such thing as Timika sub-district. Timika town is largely a company concession area used by Freeport for its economic activities, resettlement, communications and logistics, as well as being the place where tailings (from the mine) are dumped in the lowland. Timika is also the base for a number of sub- contractors working for Freeport, as well as the centre of government administration, resettlement of the population and economic activities by the common people.

Administratively, Timika is located in the East Mimika sub-district, Fak-Fak District. The village of Hoea is in Ilaga sub-district, district of Paniai.

(b) For us, the Amungme people, the root cause of the human rights violations is Freeport but the title of the National Commission's report creates the impression that the Commission has tried to avoid making any link between the company and the abuses that have occurred inside and outside its concession area.

(c) The National Commission confined itself to the five incidents made public by the Bishop of Jayapura which did indeed confirm that human rights abuses have occurred. But the Commission failed to carry out a comprehensive investigation into the incidents, when and where they occurred and what lay behind them. The six cases of abuses perpetrated against the Amungme, Dani and Erari people investigated by the Commission deal with the way in which the security forces and Freeport Security responded to OPM flag-raising incidents in Tsinga Valley on 21 May and 21 June 1994, and in the town of Timika on 25 December 1994.

2. The National Commission mentions only that sixteen inhabitants were murdered and that four who were arrested in Timika had disappeared. But what about the three civilians who were shot dead by ABRI (Indonesian Armed Forces) troops in Owea, the five civilians (killed) in Tsinga after the OPM flag-raising on 21 May and 21 June 1994, the three civilians murdered or shot dead in Arwanop and Tembagapura after the OPM flag-raising and the peaceful demonstration on 25 December in the town of Tembagapura? What about the victims of other murders, arrests and torture involving the security forces and Freeport Security from May 1994 to June 1995? Reports from our own sources say that one hundred people or more were murdered during that period. And what about the thousands of our brothers and sisters who have been killed, arbitrarily arrested and tortured by the security forces and Freeport Security since the incident that occurred in 1977 in Agimuga sub-district?
3. The Commission's findings are strictly confined to human rights abuses and say nothing at all about the root cause of these abuses, although we are quite certain that the facts are in the hands of the Commission. We think the Commission visited people who have been victimised because it believes that the basic rights of Indonesian people in this part of the country need to be respected and protected. In order to ensure that the basic traditional rights of the Amungme people are properly respected and no further violations are perpetrated against the local population, the Commission should also have investigated the system of security practised by Freeport and ABRI which is here to protect this vital national project.
4. Considering that the government decided to designate Freeport as a 'vital project', why was the matter not first discussed with the people who are the owners of the natural resources before the company began its operations? Or is it that because the company was designated as a vital project, it was deemed necessary to sacrifice the interests of the local people?
5. If the company is indeed a vital project, making it necessary for the Government to sacrifice its own people, we regard this as economic colonisation by capitalists in contravention of our national economic system.
6. The National Commission makes no mention of the involvement of Freeport in the human rights violations even though it knows all about the way in which the company has contributed to ABRI operations: the provision of a Freeport Security Command Post which is jointly used by Freeport Security and ABRI in Tembagapura, company helicopters which frequently transport troops and their supplies back and forth, three vehicles (which were painted over with camouflage after the facts about this affair came to light), as well as the containers in which detainees were held and tortured. There are also statements by witnesses who testified about the direct involvement of Freeport Security in the abuses. Was this all just coincidence and not part of a deliberate policy of collaboration?

   As people who have been the victims, all we want is a frank portrayal of the facts, in the interests of upholding the law and justice in this beloved country of ours.

7. The Commission said that the local government had been 'neglectful' but we don't think this is the case. The truth is that the local government is not bothered about the abuses which have been going on for more than a year, from May 1994 to June 1995. Moreover, thousands of Amungme people have been victims of the company since it first began its activities in this region. We have sent reports to the authorities but no one has taken the slightest bit of notice. We have been treated like pingpong balls and even threatened and killed. What we would like to ask is, why haven't the local government, the security forces and Freeport ever reported anything about this? In our experience, it has always been extremely difficult to uncover the role of ABRI and the local government. It is quite obvious that the local government and ABRI are 'wrapped up' in the company. On the other hand, what the Commission refers to as the local government's 'neglect' simply reflects the fact that it knows only too well that everything connected with the company is the responsibility of the central government which treats Freeport as a vital national project.
8. The Commission's report is far too general and confines itself only to the human rights abuses, paying no attention whatsoever to examining why all this is happening in the area where Freeport is active.
9. The Commission referred to six incidents of abuses but it gave no details about the victims. This is far too general and smacks of compromise.
10. The Commission gives a figure of sixteen victims which is exactly the same as the figure given in the Bishop's report. This means that the Commission did nothing more than check the Bishop's report and carried out no investigations of its own. In actual fact, many of the witnesses who met the Commission team while they were in the area told them of many other abuses. All this information is now in the hands of the Commission. Nor did the Commission examine the abuses that were reported by ACFOA in its report last April which said that 37 people had been killed. We very much hope that the Commission will carry out further investigations, so as to complete its work with findings that are genuine, objective and concrete, free of pressure from circles that have interests in the company.
11. While the Commission highlighted the activities of ABRI and its military operations against the GPK/OPM, no attention was paid to the linkage between protests by the community against the presence of Freeport and the inhumane actions taken by the company against the Amungme people. In fact, nothing is explained about the position of the company even though social unrest has been an integral part of the history of the company's presence here.
12. Such a presentation fails to reveal the connection between the various factors which have led to these human rights abuses. The factors that led to a wave of protests include: refusal to acknowledge our presence here as tribal people and our traditional rights, the integral ties between the Amungme people and all the resources here - the mountains, valleys, rivers. Our sacred lands have been defiled and destroyed, our lands seized and taken over. The discrimination against us has meant humiliation, especially as regards job opportunities, education and the provision of scholarships and impoverishment in our land of plenty.
13. The Commission's recommendations are very general with regard to what should be done about those responsible. In our opinion, there is little guarantee that anything will change. They seem to think that simply by resolving these cases, the sufferings of the Amungme people will disappear, bringing an end to the profound sense of loss which has traumatised us for such a long period of time.
14. The Commission report fails to place these events in an historical context. It would appear that the Commission is only interested in resolving a few cases without considering the background to this long series of events which we Amungme people have lived through ever since Freeport came into our region.
15. The human rights abuses in the Freeport concession area cannot be resolved within the confines of the Trikora/VIII Military Command or the Irian Jaya (West Papua) local government but must be dealt with based on the law, justice and truth. The fact that Freeport has been allowed to operate here in Irian Jaya (West Papua) and dig up and exploit our mineral resources, to destroy the very means of our existence, to drive us out of our ancestral lands, to impoverish us and kill us on our own territory, is all the result of a POLICY which has been determined at the centre in Jakarta. It is the Central Government that must take responsibility for reaching a solution to this problem.