Amersfoort, 21 December 2001
Syukur BagiMu Tuhan Kau Brikan Tanahku
Dear Fransalbert - International Moderator Presidium Dewan Papua. and to all
West Papua individuals and organisations as well as our supporters,
For the sacrifices, courage and determination of the West Papuan Peoples,
individuals and organisations, NGOs, Churches, Tribal Leaders, Women,
Students and Youth organisations and all loving people and institutions in
Papua Barat and abroad for their inherent right to self-determination (NOT
EXCLUDING THE RIGHT FOR A POLITICAL INDEPENDENT WEST PAPUA) to achieve
Justice, Peace and Prosperity for Security and Human Dignity in Papua, I
hereby humbly express my appreciation and respect to all of you.
The information as distributed here is an open call and contribution
for WPs to discuss and strategize their rightful and legitimate call for an
international Referendum on the basis of REAL POLITIC.
The status of this document is not confidential but merely to inform
and to support the WPs in their important, dangerous and life-threatening
work by their continuous call for an international referendum as well
as providing some format within the international scene in promoting their
plight: self-determination through referendum.
It is my believe that this very important (document) policy as discussed and
adopted by the International Commission will be welcomed by all of you in
your daily activities towards a Papua Baru and its challenges and political
opportunities.
In sharing this information with fellow West Papuans and our supporters I do
sincerely hope that under your leadership and guidance we will continue to
gain political ground and support as well as directing our aspirations into
the international governmental organisations (IGOs): United Nations, Asean,
Pacific Forum, European Union, Organisation of African States, Organisation
of American States and the Commonwealth, The Commonwealth of Independent
State (former Soviet Union) and the international arena.
In our continous efforts to the process and project: Pelurusan Sejarah Papua
Barat. It is our common task to build up international conditionalities for
this purpose. The current discussion and progress on the role and
responsibility of the international community under the leadership of the
United Nations has been challenged again. The following information and
documentation clearly is supportive for the cause of the West Papuans. We
need to combine, coordinate, structure and
push for our legitimate right to self-determination that has been abused
since 1962. For your information and consideration. As has been clearly
stated by many West Papuans, individually and collectively in their various
responsibilities through their own networks- inside and outside of West
Papua, in a concerted effort with international solidarity groups, again a
new Window of Opportunity is here. How do grasp this momentum not only to
challenge the international community but foremost - How the Refferendum for
West Papua can be put in this new perspective - for the West Papuan call for
' Pelurusan Sejarah Papua Barat'. Again how do we all continue and proceed
from here?
For more, better, regular and effective communication on the basis of
mutual understand and respect: Untuk Manusia di Papua Baru
Untuk Perjuangan Papua Baru
Untuk Manusia Papua Baru Yang Akan Merdeka disemua Makna.
To Refer or Not Refer...that's not a question - ALL WE WANT IS A
REFERRENDUM NOW!
Helem-Foi
Bri Kita Rajin juga sampaikan MaksudMu
Viktor Kaisiepo Ms.-
Anggota dan Perwakilan PDP - Eropa
INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY
Source: This integral text has been obtained from the (http://www.un.org)
18 December 2001
PRESS CONFERENCE BY CANADA ON INTERVENTION AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY
If a State does nothing to prevent its people from suffering grave
loss of life or “ethnic cleansing”, the international community should step
in to protect them, according to a report released at Headquarters today by
the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty.
“The Commission’s report is clear, with action-oriented recommendations
that are relevant now, before the next crisis”, said Canadian Ambassador
Paul Heinbecker, who introduced the report on
behalf of John Manley, Canada’s Minister for Foreign Affairs.
“The issue of humanitarian intervention has been on the table for a
number of years, placed there by the tragedies of Rwanda and Srbrenica,
among others, and kept there by the multiplicity of conflicts
of the 1990s.”
Mr. Heinbecker was joined by two co-chairmen of the Commission, Gareth Evans
of Australia and Mohamed Sahnoun of Algeria. The 12-member Commission is an
independent body sponsored by the Canadian Government, which was set up by
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien at the United Nations Millennium
Summit in September 2000.
Mr. Sahnoun noted that the Commission’s task was to reconcile two
objectives. One was to strengthen, not weaken, the sovereignty of States,
while the other was to improve the capacity of the international community
to react decisively when States were unable or unwilling to
protect their own people.
The Commission concluded, after discussions with leaders in 13 developed and
developing countries, that those dual objectives could be met. “Almost
everyone agreed that there is an emerging principle that intervention for
human protection is necessary when major harm to
civilians is occurring, and the State is unwilling to end the harm or is
itself the perpetrator”, he said.
The responsibility of the international community to protect in those
situations means preventing the causes of conflict and other crises putting
populations at risk, the report states. It also means reacting with
appropriate measures, which may include sanctions, international prosecution
or military intervention.
“In all our consultations, the message was clear”, Mr. Sahnoun said. “In
cases of violence which genuinely shocked the conscience of mankind, or
presented a danger for international security, coercive military
intervention is justified.”
That military intervention must be authorized by the United Nations Security
Council, the report says. The Council should act promptly if requested for
authority to intervene in cases of grave
suffering, and the Permanent Five members should agree not to apply their
veto power to block resolutions authorizing military intervention.
If the Council rejected such a proposal, then it should be taken up by the
General Assembly or by regional and subregional organizations, the report
continued. If the Council failed to protect in shocking situations crying
out for action, concerned States may use other means, which could damage the
stature and credibility of the United Nations.
The starting and finishing point of the report was that the international
community must no longer turn the other way and do nothing in the face of
large-scale human killing, misery and distress, said Mr.
Evans. “The immediate necessity was to get people out of their foxholes, out
of the trenches in which they’ve been digging themselves in the General
Assembly and many other debates since 1999.”
He added that the Security Council should act according to those principles,
and be prepared to act a lot more decisively than in the past. If it didn’t,
it was running the risk that other States would.
They would perhaps do so outside principles and constraints the United
Nations felt were critically important.
Those States may be entirely successful, he added, winning a huge
measure of international popular support. “That could utterly reduce the
stature and credibility of the United Nations itself, meaning in
future people might go to someone else to do the job. Those are the risks
the Security Council runs if it doesn’t seriously grapple with these
problems”, Mr. Evans said.
Asked what the most important hurdles might be to extreme action in cases
of severe harm, Mr. Evans responded that the risk to human life must justify
the intervention. Extreme military intervention could only be justified by
serious and irreparable harm to human beings, or
imminently likely to occur.
That kind of serious harm included large-scale loss of life brought about by
State action, neglect, the inability to act or a failed State situation, Mr.
Evans said. Military intervention would also be
warranted for “ethnic cleansing”, which may be carried out by killing,
forced expulsion, acts of terror or rape.
Another correspondent asked him to comment on meetings he had had
about the report’s ideas with officials in China, Russia and India. Those
countries had been in the forefront of nations wanting to protect their
sovereignty in places like Chechnya, Tibet and Kashmir.
Mr. Evans responded that the basic reaction of all three countries was that
no interaction should be allowed without the authority of the Security
Council, although that could be seen as self-interest in countries
possessing the veto.
* *** *
File:MD/West Papua/Intervention and State Sovereignty-Dec01.doc
|