This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Allen Forrest.

Incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and seven other presidential candidates pledged to abide by the choice of the electorate. Edmundo González, promoted by the US, and another candidate have not signed the pledge, consistent with the far right only accepting contest results where they win. Likewise, a bipartisan and bicameral resolution was introduced on June 18 to the US Congress not to recognize a “fraudulent” Maduro victory.

This election is taking place in the context of US unilateral coercive measures. These so-called sanctions have amounted to an actual economic and financial blockade designed to cripple the economy and cause the people to renounce their government. Such outside interference by Washington is tantamount to electoral blackmail.

Yet Carlos Ron, Venezuela’s deputy minister of foreign affairs for North America, is confident that the government party will win. He spoke on June 25 at a webinar organized by the Venezuela Solidarity Network.

Ron explained that the Venezuelan people and government have achieved remarkable progress, resisting Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign. A tanking economy has now been reversed. By the end of 2023, Venezuela had recorded 11 quarters of consecutive growth after years of economic contraction.

Instead of irrevocably crashing the economy, according to Ron, the US hybrid warfare against Venezuela exposed the US-backed opposition, who have called for sanctions against their own people and have even treasonously endorsed a US-backed military coup option.

Economist Yosmer Arellán, who is associated with the Central Bank of Venezuela and has collaborated with the UN Special Rapporteur on the impact of unilateral coercive measures, also addressed the webinar. Arellán spoke of the pain visited upon the Venezuelan people by the US sanctions.

The economist explained that the economy was further impacted by the crash in oil prices, beginning in 2014, as well as by overcompliance with the economic coercive measures by third-parties fearful of US reprisals. Then Covid hit. During the height of the pandemic, even though Venezuela had the hard currency, US sanctions blocked the financial transactions necessary to buy vaccines. He likened such measures to “bombs dropped on our society.”

In contrast, Venezuela’s economic situation is now looking comparatively bullish. On the same day as the webinar, President Maduro announced oil production had recovered to one million barrels a day. Earlier this month, the five millionth home was delivered as part of the Great Housing Mission social program.

Arellán described what he called the three-step “virtuous formula” for recovering the economy. This is a model, he added, for the some one third of humanity being punished by US unilateral coercive measures.

First came resistance in the face of the “extortion” of the unilateral coercive measures. Venezuela learned through trial and error how to do more with less. Out of necessity, the country began to wean itself from dependence on oil revenues which had fallen over 90%. Small and medium businesses were promoted. The private sector, despite being prone to oppose the socialist project, was also punished by the US measures. Today, big business is investing more in domestic productive capacity, according to Arellán.

Second was halting the economic freefall and achieving economic stability. Two areas in particular were key: rationalizing the exchange rate of the Venezuelan bolivar in relation to the US dollar and taming runaway inflation. Monthly inflation got down to 1.2%, a previously unheard of low rate.

Third has been the recovery stage, transforming the economy from one dependent on oil revenues to buy foreign goods to one that is now over 90% food sovereign. The economy is being diversified with the sober understanding that relief from the US imperialist hybrid war is unlikely in the near future.

Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Ron further explained the political dimensions of the US sanctions, which were designed to reverse the sizable achievements of the Chávez years. The aim, he said, was to kill hope and blame socialism for the attacks of “predatory capitalism.” The Venezuelan state was robbed by the US and its allies: seizure of overseas assets; dispossession of  CITGO, the state-owned oil subsidiary in the US; and confiscation of gold reserves held abroad.

The “perversity of sanctions,” according to Ron, is that they undermine the social functions of the state to support the welfare of the people. That is, they try to cripple the government in order to make socialism look bad.

Ron gave the example of the 16% malnutrition rate when Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998. By 2011, the rate was reduced to only 3%. But with the US maximum pressure campaign, the rate shot up to 13% (still better than before the revolution but punishing nonetheless).

Venezuela experienced record out migration. This emigration was not due, as claimed by the US, to political persecution but was precipitated by worsening economic prospects caused primarily by the US politically-motivated sanctions. But now, Ron explained, citizens are returning to Venezuela and a new vice-ministry to assist their return has been created.

Washington tried to isolate Venezuela both financially and diplomatically. Four years ago the US and some 50 of its allies recognized the parallel government of “interim president” Juan Guaidó, who had never even run for national office in Venezuela. Today only the US, Israel, and a few others still fail to recognize the elected government.

Meanwhile, Venezuela has forged significant new economic and political ties with Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran among others. Regional alliances with Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and some Caribbean states, such as ALBA, have been strengthened. Close cooperative relations have been reinforced with friendly governments in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, three of the four leading economies in Latin America.  And Venezuela is orienting toward the Global South, with the possibility of joining the expanded BRICS+ alliance of emerging economies looking increasingly likely.

Indeed, far from being isolated, Ron noted, Venezuela has further integrated into an emerging multipolar world. Venezuela was just elected to a vice-presidency of the UN General Assembly.

Ron credited current successes to the political will of a strong and unwavering leadership under President Maduro, which he characterized as a “collective leadership” encompassing many actors. This was coupled with organized “people power.” Both, he emphasized, were needed. Venezuela, he concluded, demonstrated the people’s willingness to face challenges and a government that did not give up on the battle for socialism.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Roger D. Harris.

Incumbent President Nicolás Maduro and seven other presidential candidates pledged to abide by the choice of the electorate. Edmundo González, promoted by the US, and another candidate have not signed the pledge, consistent with the far right only accepting contest results where they win. Likewise, a bipartisan and bicameral resolution was introduced on June 18 to the US Congress not to recognize a “fraudulent” Maduro victory.

This election is taking place in the context of US unilateral coercive measures. These so-called sanctions have amounted to an actual economic and financial blockade designed to cripple the economy and cause the people to renounce their government. Such outside interference by Washington is tantamount to electoral blackmail.

Yet Carlos Ron, Venezuela’s deputy minister of foreign affairs for North America, is confident that the government party will win. He spoke on June 25 at a webinar organized by the Venezuela Solidarity Network.

Ron explained that the Venezuelan people and government have achieved remarkable progress, resisting Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign. A tanking economy has now been reversed. By the end of 2023, Venezuela had recorded 11 quarters of consecutive growth after years of economic contraction.

Instead of irrevocably crashing the economy, according to Ron, the US hybrid warfare against Venezuela exposed the US-backed opposition, who have called for sanctions against their own people and have even treasonously endorsed a US-backed military coup option.

Economist Yosmer Arellán, who is associated with the Central Bank of Venezuela and has collaborated with the UN Special Rapporteur on the impact of unilateral coercive measures, also addressed the webinar. Arellán spoke of the pain visited upon the Venezuelan people by the US sanctions.

The economist explained that the economy was further impacted by the crash in oil prices, beginning in 2014, as well as by overcompliance with the economic coercive measures by third-parties fearful of US reprisals. Then Covid hit. During the height of the pandemic, even though Venezuela had the hard currency, US sanctions blocked the financial transactions necessary to buy vaccines. He likened such measures to “bombs dropped on our society.”

In contrast, Venezuela’s economic situation is now looking comparatively bullish. On the same day as the webinar, President Maduro announced oil production had recovered to one million barrels a day. Earlier this month, the five millionth home was delivered as part of the Great Housing Mission social program.

Arellán described what he called the three-step “virtuous formula” for recovering the economy. This is a model, he added, for the some one third of humanity being punished by US unilateral coercive measures.

First came resistance in the face of the “extortion” of the unilateral coercive measures. Venezuela learned through trial and error how to do more with less. Out of necessity, the country began to wean itself from dependence on oil revenues which had fallen over 90%. Small and medium businesses were promoted. The private sector, despite being prone to oppose the socialist project, was also punished by the US measures. Today, big business is investing more in domestic productive capacity, according to Arellán.

Second was halting the economic freefall and achieving economic stability. Two areas in particular were key: rationalizing the exchange rate of the Venezuelan bolivar in relation to the US dollar and taming runaway inflation. Monthly inflation got down to 1.2%, a previously unheard of low rate.

Third has been the recovery stage, transforming the economy from one dependent on oil revenues to buy foreign goods to one that is now over 90% food sovereign. The economy is being diversified with the sober understanding that relief from the US imperialist hybrid war is unlikely in the near future.

Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Ron further explained the political dimensions of the US sanctions, which were designed to reverse the sizable achievements of the Chávez years. The aim, he said, was to kill hope and blame socialism for the attacks of “predatory capitalism.” The Venezuelan state was robbed by the US and its allies: seizure of overseas assets; dispossession of  CITGO, the state-owned oil subsidiary in the US; and confiscation of gold reserves held abroad.

The “perversity of sanctions,” according to Ron, is that they undermine the social functions of the state to support the welfare of the people. That is, they try to cripple the government in order to make socialism look bad.

Ron gave the example of the 16% malnutrition rate when Hugo Chávez was elected president in 1998. By 2011, the rate was reduced to only 3%. But with the US maximum pressure campaign, the rate shot up to 13% (still better than before the revolution but punishing nonetheless).

Venezuela experienced record out migration. This emigration was not due, as claimed by the US, to political persecution but was precipitated by worsening economic prospects caused primarily by the US politically-motivated sanctions. But now, Ron explained, citizens are returning to Venezuela and a new vice-ministry to assist their return has been created.

Washington tried to isolate Venezuela both financially and diplomatically. Four years ago the US and some 50 of its allies recognized the parallel government of “interim president” Juan Guaidó, who had never even run for national office in Venezuela. Today only the US, Israel, and a few others still fail to recognize the elected government.

Meanwhile, Venezuela has forged significant new economic and political ties with Russia, China, Turkey, and Iran among others. Regional alliances with Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and some Caribbean states, such as ALBA, have been strengthened. Close cooperative relations have been reinforced with friendly governments in Brazil, Mexico, and Colombia, three of the four leading economies in Latin America.  And Venezuela is orienting toward the Global South, with the possibility of joining the expanded BRICS+ alliance of emerging economies looking increasingly likely.

Indeed, far from being isolated, Ron noted, Venezuela has further integrated into an emerging multipolar world. Venezuela was just elected to a vice-presidency of the UN General Assembly.

Ron credited current successes to the political will of a strong and unwavering leadership under President Maduro, which he characterized as a “collective leadership” encompassing many actors. This was coupled with organized “people power.” Both, he emphasized, were needed. Venezuela, he concluded, demonstrated the people’s willingness to face challenges and a government that did not give up on the battle for socialism.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Roger D. Harris.

Image by Mathias Reding.

Although, according to the UN Charter, the United Nations was established to “maintain international peace and security,” it has often fallen short of this goal. Russia’s ongoing military invasion of Ukraine and the more recent Israeli-Palestinian war in Gaza provide the latest examples of the world organization’s frequent paralysis in the face of violent international conflict.

The hobbling of the Security Council, the UN agency tasked with enforcing international peace and security, bears the lion’s share of the responsibility for this weakness. Under the rules set forth by the UN Charter, each permanent member of the Security Council has the power to veto Security Council resolutions. And these members have used the veto, thereby blocking UN action.

This built-in weakness was inherited from the UN’s predecessor, the League of Nations. In that body, a unanimous vote by all member nations was required for League action. Such unanimity of course, proved nearly impossible to attain, and this fact largely explains the League’s failure and eventual collapse.

The creators of the United Nations, aware of this problem when drafting the new organization’s Charter in 1944-45, limited the number of nations that could veto Security Council resolutions to the five major military powers of the era―the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain, China, and France.

Other nations went along with this arrangement because these “great powers” insisted that, without this acceptance of their primacy, they would not support the establishment of the new world organization. The Charter’s only restriction on their use of the veto was a provision that it could not be cast by a party to a dispute―a provision largely ignored after 1952. Fortifying the privileged position of these five permanent Security Council members, the Charter also provided that any change in their status required their approval.

In this fashion, the great powers of the era locked in the ability of any one of them to block a UN Security Council resolution that it opposed.

Not surprisingly, they availed themselves of this privilege. By May 2022, Russia (which took the seat previously held by the Soviet Union), had cast its veto in the Security Council on 121 occasions. The United States cast 82 vetoes, Britain 29, China 17, and France 16.

As the Council’s paralysis became apparent, proponents of UN action gravitated toward the UN General Assembly. This UN entity expanded substantially after 1945 as newly independent countries joined the United Nations. Moreover, no veto blocked passage of its resolutions. Therefore, the General Assembly could serve not only as a voice for the world’s nations, but as an alternative source of power.

The first sign of a shift in power from the Security Council to the General Assembly emerged with the General Assembly’s approval of Resolution 377A: “Uniting for Peace.” The catalyst was the Soviet Union’s use of its veto to block the Security Council from authorizing continued military action to end the Korean War. Uniting for Peace, adopted on November 3, 1950 by an overwhelming vote in the General Assembly, stated that, “if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security . . . the General Assembly shall consider the matter immediately with a view to making appropriate recommendations to members for collective measures.” To facilitate rapid action, the resolution created the mechanism of the emergency special session.

Between 1951 and 2022, the United Nations drew upon the Uniting for Peace resolution on 13 occasions, with 11 cases taking the form of the emergency special session. In addition to dealing with the Korean War, Uniting for Peace resolutions addressed the Suez confrontation, as well as crises in Hungary, Congo, Afghanistan, Palestine, Namibia, and Ukraine. Although, under the umbrella of Uniting for Peace, the General Assembly could have recommended “armed force when necessary” against violators of international peace and security, the Assembly adopted that approach only during the Korean War. On the other occasions, it limited itself to calls for peaceful resolution of international conflict and the imposition of sanctions against aggressors.

These developments had mixed results. In 1956, during the Suez crisis, shortly after the General Assembly held a Uniting for Peace session calling for British and French withdrawal from the canal zone, both countries complied. By contrast, in 1980, when a Uniting for Peace session called for an end to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Moscow ignored the UN demand. It could do so thanks to the fact that General Assembly resolutions are mere recommendations and, as such, are not legally binding.

Even so, global crises in recent years have heightened pressure to provide the United Nations with the ability to take effective action. In April 2022, shortly after the Russian government vetoed a Security Council resolution calling for Russia’s unconditional withdrawal from Ukraine, the General Assembly voted that, henceforth a Security Council veto would automatically trigger a meeting of the Assembly within 10 days of the action to cope with the situation.

Meanwhile, numerous nations have been working to restrict the veto in specific situations. In July 2015, the UN Accountability, Coherence, and Transparency Group proposed a Code of Conduct against “genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes” that called upon all Security Council members to avoid voting to reject any credible draft resolution intended to prevent or halt mass atrocities. By 2022, the Code had been signed by 121 member nations. France and Mexico have taken the lead in proposing the renunciation of the veto in these situations.

These reform initiatives are likely to be addressed at the September 2024 UN Summit of the Future.

Clearly, as the history of the United Nations demonstrates, if the world organization is to maintain international peace and security, it must be freed from its current constraints.

The post Overcoming the Obstacles to UN Maintenance of International Peace and Security appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Lawrence Wittner.

The trafficking of people and illicit goods, especially synthetic drugs like methamphetamine, from the Golden Triangle, an area which includes Thailand, Myanmar and Laos, has enriched criminal networks and flooded the region and beyond with addictive narcotics.

UNODC has brought governments together to collaborate through border liaison officers who share information about trafficking. Daniel Dickinson spoke to UNODC’s Chief of Border Management, Alan Cole on a trip to the Golden Triangle and began by asking him about the role of these officers.

This content originally appeared on UN News - Global perspective Human stories and was authored by Daniel Dickinson.

The trafficking of people and illicit goods, especially synthetic drugs like methamphetamine, from the Golden Triangle, an area which includes Thailand, Myanmar and Laos, has enriched criminal networks and flooded the region and beyond with addictive narcotics.

UNODC has brought governments together to collaborate through border liaison officers who share information about trafficking. Daniel Dickinson spoke to UNODC’s Chief of Border Management, Alan Cole on a trip to the Golden Triangle and began by asking him about the role of these officers.

This content originally appeared on UN News - Global perspective Human stories and was authored by Daniel Dickinson.

Fragmentation is a particular curse of the modern world. We live in a bewildering array of systems and networks, of groupings and cultures. In market society we are continually being sold one thing or another. The grabs for our attention and focus are seemingly infinite. There is not much to bring us together as people, especially around concepts about how we might create a better society.

There seems to be some design in this. The very idea we might create a better society stands in challenge to business as usual. Since the 1980s, we have lived with the neoliberal ideas that the market rules, there is no alternative, and, as neoliberal icon and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, there is no such thing as society, only individuals and families.

Of course, there are many people and groups working on aspects of what would make a better society. Nonprofit advocacy organizations, progressive businesses that have moved beyond purely bottom line considerations, labor unions, caring individuals and others all advance pieces of the puzzle. But we have nothing to assemble the whole picture, or to accumulate the collective power that comes from unity around a shared vision. We have no institutional framework to create and carry forward a sense of the common good.

That is the place of a movement of movements, to move beyond single-issue politics, to pull together the various aspirations for a better society into an understandable, coherent whole, and to unify our forces to make our aspirations reality. Here I offer a few initial thoughts on how to make this happen, based on many years of progressive activist experience, including some work in coalition building.

The power of a common vision

Building broader alignments takes time and resources. In fields working for change, those are generally limited. So for people to devote time to the project, they must see it as providing additional value to the causes on which they are focused. They must see how a broader alignment can indeed provide victories.

There is an additional hurdle, and it is perhaps the greatest. Anyone who has participated long in activist politics knows what a turf battle is.  They can be vicious. Leaders of advocacy groups wish to protect their place in their issue arena, and often regard new entrants with suspicion. They can also be worried that focus on their issue will be diffused in a larger format.

For these reasons, the seeds of a movement of movements must be planted by people who see value in a broader alignment, and can look beyond their own institutional boundaries and single issues to build a larger vision of the common good.

The most compelling reason to participate in building such a movement is the power of such a vision – In creating a framework through which we can ask ourselves what we want this place to look like 10, 20 and 50 years in the future, and a consensus and plan of action to realize that shared vision. That is why I think a movement of movements needs to be built from the ground up, with local alignments forming the cellular units of larger confederations created at state/provincial, bioregional and national levels.

It is far more feasible to build a vision for the future in place, because place is what we can comprehend. It shapes our immediate experience, including our sense of where things are going wrong. The homeless camp under the bridge, the traffic jam and smoggy air, the police shooting, the wage and wealth gap. We cannot solve all these problems on our own in the places we live. But we can begin to make a dent, and assemble consensus for action at larger levels. There is a particular power in coming together as people, saying this is our vision for our place and we are coming together to make it happen.

That points to an additional approach that I think is crucial. Many of us imagine a transformed society that looks starkly different that the one we have today, with a different basis of economics and infrastructure. But the place to start toward any change is distinguishing what is not working today. Often, that is because we lack the institutional frameworks that would meet needs. So much of what a movement of movements must do is identifying new institutions that must be created. For example:

+ Public social housing agencies to provide the affordable housing the private market does not.

+ Public banks to fund social and energy transition that for-profit banks will not.

+ Single-payer health insurance provided at state and regional levels, potentially preparing for a national system.

+ Community food systems that eliminate food waste and insecurity at the same time.

The public assembly

A key institutional element in the movement of movements itself is participatory democracy exercised through a public assembly. It can be called a community congress or community assembly. Extinction Rebellion uses the term people’s assembly. Ecological philosopher Murray Bookchin did extensive writing on the importance of such assemblies in building authority and legitimacy for democratic will. An assembly is the new public square, the new town meeting. There is a rich literature from Bookchin and others on community assemblies into which I will dig in future posts.

An assembly is the venue for agreeing on a common vision. But for an assembly to produce more than a wish list, it must also agree on a structure and plan to carry it forward. As I wrote in my previous piece, the failure to create such structures left prior broad-spanning initiatives such as the World Social Forum as primarily talk-fests. But here is where it gets tricky. Structure implies a level of authority and accountability, as well as shared resources. There must be some level of agreement among the participants to be accountable, and to carry out needed tasks.

Single-issue orientation must pass, but there still must be the capacity to focus on specific areas. That is why an assembly and follow-on infrastructure must create clusters that provide that focus, such as housing, transportation, climate, health care, criminal justice, etc. Groups currently active in those areas can provide leadership roles, allaying some of the concern about turf. Importantly, and adding a value beyond single-issue groupings, connective tissue can be created where issues crosshatch. For example, it is impossible to consider transportation and housing separately. These are intimately connected areas.

Overall, groups participating in the movement of movements, while still primarily focused in their issue area, would commit to educating their members and constituencies on the whole vision, and how their specific issue fits in. When there is a need for public comment or mobilization, all participants agree to reach out and help where they can.

There are reasons of practicality why we have not seen a movement of movements come about as an enduring mass reality, some cited above. It takes a lot of work and some breaking down of institutional boundaries. One must add, knowing the history of intelligence agency dirty tricks such as the FBI’s Cointelpro, a movement that threatens to be effective will be subject to disruption. There are many obstacles.

But we must overcome those obstacles. We have an overwhelming need to return to a sense of the common good, and build unity of purpose and action around creating it. For that we need to build the institutional structures through which we can come together to do this.  That place is missing today. A movement of movements is what we need to fill that gap. These are only initial thoughts, which I hope will spur a dialogue on this crucial topic.

This first appeared on The Raven.

This content originally appeared on CounterPunch.org and was authored by Patrick Mazza.

Screams erupted as the sound of gunshots ricocheted around the open-air market. People ran.

It was bloody.

“I saw from my own eyes the gun violence,” says Laurens Ikinia.

• READ MORE:  Indonesian policy switch cuts off funding for Papuan students in NZ – Matthew Scott
• Why have scholarships dried up for Papuan ‘band of brothers’? – Mary Argue
• Papuan students form global umbrella body, reaffirm campaign for education rights
• How Google moulds public opinion on West Papua, disrupts education – Yamin Kogoya
• Papuan students succeed in NZ – ‘the golden generation from Papua’
• Mahasiswa Papua di luar negeri deklarasikan IAPSO – Tabloid Jubi [Bahasa Indonesian]
• Papuan students succeed in NZ – ‘the golden generation from Papua’
• Other West Papua education reports

“It was just crazy.”

Ikinia was still a child when he witnessed Indonesian security forces open fire at a market in Wamena, the largest highland town in West Papua’s Baliem Valley.

He says it was a massacre. It was later recognised as the 2003 Wamena Incident (or Peristiwa Wamena 2003 in Bahasa Indonesian).

What began as a raid on an armoury led to a two-month operation by the Indonesian Army and National Police. Thousands of villagers were displaced, civilians killed.

It was a response to increasing cries for West Papuan independence.

Some healing in NZ
The trauma of that day lasts, says Ikinia, but in the recent years, studying in New Zealand he has experienced some healing.

Ikinia is one of 125 West Papuan students in Aotearoa, arriving in 2015 and 2016 on a scholarship to study abroad.

He aspires to write Pasifika stories, about the people and places largely ignored by the international media.

He is close to completing a Master of Communications at Auckland University of Technology.

However, the domino effect of legislative changes in Jakarta means the 27-year-old stands to lose it all.

A couple of years before the violence in Wamena, Papua Provincial Governor Lukas Enembe established a scholarship programme for Papuans to study abroad.

The investment in indigenous human resources drew on Special Autonomy funds granted by Jakarta, but employed at the governor’s discretion.

‘Inspired thinking’
“It was inspired thinking on his part,” says Professor David Robie, retired director of the Pacific Media Centre and editor of Asia Pacific Report (APR).

“Get them educated outside West Papua, outside Indonesia, and come back with fresh ideas.”

But in 2021, the money dried up.

In a 20-year legislative review, the central Indonesian government passed a bill ratifying sweeping amendments to the Special Autonomy Law, effectively diverting money and authority away from the provinces.

Despite widespread opposition by West Papuans and calls for an independence referendum instead, the funds propping up several provincial programmes, including the scholarships were allocated elsewhere.

The fallout for the students abroad arrived in December.

A letter to the Indonesian embassy with a list of names — 39 students in New Zealand, and dozens of others overseas, were to be sent home.

‘Underperforming’ students
A translation of the letter says underperforming students and those who had not completed their study in the allocated timeframe would be repatriated by December 31, 2021.

Ikinia’s name is on the list.

“It doesn’t make sense at all,” he says.

“Based on my track record, I was one of the ones that completed the programme the fastest.”

He says all postgraduate students were given a three-month thesis extension due to covid interruptions.

“I am just about to finish.”

He says the decision to recall students is based on incorrect data held by the Provincial Government’s Human Resources Department Bureau (HRDB).

Many phone calls
“We have had a number of phone calls. It seems like people in the department don’t hold the data according to the latest results.

“It’s totally wrong. I did not start my masters in 2016.”

It’s politics, says Yan Wenda, president of the Papuan Student Association in Oceania, and a postgraduate student at the University of Otago.

“The central government in Jakarta changed the law without any input from the provincial government.

“They did the review, and in some areas changed how they managed the money between the provinces and the districts.

“It affects the students studying abroad.”

He says calls to the bureau confirmed this.

‘The money is not here’
“[They said] ‘the money is not here. It’s just not happening for you guys, you’ll have to come back home.’”

He says not only have successful students been recalled, but also the allowance for others has stopped.

“As students we are desperate to pay our rent. We haven’t had any allowance in two months.

“This is why we need to speak up about this.

“We have been victims of this change.”

A public statement issued by the newly formed International Alliance of Papuan Student Associations Overseas (IAPSAO) on January 27 urged the Indonesian government to consider the rights of Papuans to obtain a quality education.

Wenda and student presidents from the United States and Canada — where 81 students were recalled, Russia, Germany, and Japan signed it.

Sustainability of the governor’s policy
They requested the 10 per cent fund allocation for the education sector return to the Papua Provincial Government “for the continuity and sustainability of the governor’s policy to develop Papuan human resources”.

“Don’t kill Papuan human resources anymore with political policy.”

The students have since demanded that the Indonesian Embassy facilitate a dialogue with Indonesian President Joko Widodo.

“It is a really sad development,” says Professor Robie.

“It’s all political by Jakarta. It’s all about self-determination, all about denying the rights of Melanesians in the two provinces of Papua to define their own future.”

He says the Jakarta government is uncomfortable with the student scholarships, and says the premise for repatriation was baseless.

“They are trying to curb the rights of Papuan students to get an education overseas.

‘Fundamentally changed’
“What has fundamentally changed is that (provincial) autonomy, that right to send those students to where they want to go.

“Those decisions are no longer in their hands.”

After APR reported on the issue, Dr Robie received a letter from the Indonesian Embassy, stating it was “appalled at the unfounded claims” made in the regional website.

The letter said the Indonesian government was committed to ensuring the right to education for all Indonesian citizens.

In response to questions from the Times-Age the embassy refuted claims that repatriation of students was politically motivated and said the HRDB did not recall students based on academic performance alone.

Length of study and the students’ disciplinary records were also taken into account.

A spokesperson said they could not speak to the accuracy of the information used recall students. However, they said the decision was the result of a thorough assessment by the bureau.

Conceded adjustments made
They denied budget cuts to the Papuan Special Autonomy Fund were responsible, but conceded adjustments were made to the “budgetary system”.

In response to the demands for dialogue with the president:

“[We] have duly engaged and in coordination with concerned students, Students’ Coordinator, student organisations, and the Provincial Government of Papua to further discuss the issue at hand.”

Wenda and Ikinia say scholarship students around the world are united in their stance, they will not return home.

“We are demanding our rights to education. We have no political agenda at all,”  Ikinia says.

“The government claims that we have a hidden political agenda, this is totally incorrect and unacceptable. We have been always participating in the events that the Indonesian Embassy has been hosting.”

When Indonesia staged a Pacific Exposition in Auckland in 2019, Papuan students actively participated in the event. Most of the Papuan students participated as local ambassadors to accompany the diplomats and delegations who came from the Pacific.

“I myself have also been the president of the Indonesian Students Association in Palmerston North and at the same time vice-president of Indonesian Students in New Zealand in 2018-19.”

‘Trauma healing’
Ikinia says West Papuans have become a minority in their own land, and suffering is not an anomaly.

“In New Zealand I realised how other people could treat us, like family,” he says.

“This is the treatment we should receive from the Indonesian government.”

He believes coming to New Zealand goes beyond academic achievement.

“It is part of the journey to find the potential in my life. And it’s part of the trauma healing.”

He says the New Zealand government is in a position to help the students, by acknowledging their Pasifika status.

“We are not Asians, we are Melanesians.

“We know NZ is a generous country that helps minority groups. We hope in this difficult time the New Zealand government will open its arms and have us as part of their Pacific family.”

Mary Argue is a Wairarapa Times-Age reporter. Republished with permission.

This content originally appeared on Asia Pacific Report and was authored by APR editor.