Updates from June, 2012 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Virtual Chitchatting 2:46 PM on 2012/06/05 Permalink  

    Salam Terakhir untuk Nurlela

    http://www.4shared.com/embed/74369105/aa04f943

    Ikang Fawzi – Salam Terakhir


    http://www.4shared.com/mp3/ugCS9pu-/Atiek_CB_-_Nurlela__Rumpies_.html

    Nurlela adalah album kompilasi dari penyanyi Vina Panduwinata, Malyda, Trie Utami, Atiek CB yang tergabung dalam grup yang dinamakan Rumpies. Sedangkan Lagu “Nurlela” sendiri diciptakan oleh Deddy Dhukun dan Sam Bobo.

    Rumpies hanya menyanyikan 3 lagu dalam album ini.

    1. “NURLEILA” (Sam Bobo & Deddy Dhukun) oleh : Rumpies
    2. “NGGAK JELAS” (Mus Mujiono & Deddy Dhukun) oleh : Rumpies
    3. “KALAU KAU” (Erwin Badudu & Deddy Dhukun) oleh : Rumpies
    4. “MALU” (Denda Sukma) oleh : Franky Sahilatua
    5. “CHINTIA” (Ancha Haiz) oleh : Ancha Haiz
    6. “KESAN” (Bagoes AA) oleh : Ryan Kyoto
    7. “PERCAYALAH KASIH” (Yanni Libels & Acon Bonai) oleh : Johandi Yahya
    8. “KENANGAN SEPTEMBER” (Rangga S.) oleh : Dewi Yoesoef
    9. “SAAT SAAT MANIS” (Toni Sianipar & Ferina) oleh : Cecep AS
    10. “SERIUS DONG” (Yahya Ali Lahdji) oleh : Cantora Geronimo

    http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurlela


    http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumpies

    Rumpies adalah grup vokal Indonesia pada akhir era 1980-an dan awal 1990-an. Grup ini beranggotakan 4 orang penyanyi yang terkenal pada masa itu Vina Panduwinata, Malyda, Trie Utami dan Atiek CB.

    grup ini didirikan hanya untuk intermezzo saja. Lagu mereka yang paling populer dan tetap diingat sampai sekarang adalah Nurlela tahun 1989. Lagu tersebut meledak dan mendapatkan BASF Awards kategori album terlaris pop kreatif 1990. Untuk mengulang kesuksesan, lagu tersebut dibuat sekuelnya dengan judul Nurlela Tabahkan Hatimu. Saat merilis album kedua Vina Panduwinata tak lagi dalam kelompok Rumpies. Sehingga pada saat merilis album kedua dan ketiga Rumpies hanaya beranggotakan 3 orang. Setelah album Pacarku, Rumpies tak lagi terdengar kabarnya karena kesibukan masing-masing personel.

    Album Rumpies:

    1. Nurlela (1989)
    2. Nurlela 2 Tabahkan Hatimu (1990)
    3. Pacarku (1992)

    Reuni

    Pada tanggal 7 Juni 2008, Rumpies muncul kembali setelah 18 tahun vakum dalam Konser Reuni Rumpies 2008 di Kamasutra Cafe Hotel Crown Plaza Jakarta. Masing-masing personel Rumpies lainnya juga mambawakan secara solo sebanyak 3-6 lagu. Satu bulan sebelumnya, Rumpies juga muncul sebagai bintang tamu di konser tunggal Vina Panduwinata.

    Vina dan Trie optimis dengan kemungkinan bangkitnya Rumpies dengan album baru dan konser-konser berikutnya. Kendala yang datang adalah dari Malyda yang kini telah mengenakan jilbab dan agak sulit mendapatkan izin bernyanyi lagi dari suaminya, serta Atiek CB yang saat ini bermukim bersama suami dan anak-anaknya di Wilmington, Delaware, Amerika Serikat.

    Daftar lagu yang dinyanyikan di Konser Reuni Rumpies 2008 sesuai dengan urutannya:

    Malyda
    Aku Jadi Bingung
    Tak Pernah Berubah
    Semua Jadi Satu

    Trie Utami
    Keraguan (LCLR 1987)
    Kuingin Kau Ada (cipt. 2D)
    Sekitar Kita (Krakatau)

    Atiek CB
    Optimis
    Resah
    Kau Ada Dimana (feat. Ronnie Sianturi)
    Benci Sendiri
    Maafkan
    Terserah Boy

    Vina Panduwinata
    Logika
    Di Dadaku Ada Kamu
    Dia
    Biru
    Surat Cinta
    Aku Makin Cinta

    Rumpies (Malyda, Trie Utami, Atiek CB, Vina Panduwinata)
    Kalau Kau
    Nggak Jelas
    Ironi (cover of Lydia & Imaniar)
    Nurleila

    http://lirik.kapanlagi.com/artis/rumpies/nurlela

    Nurleila geleng kepala
    Nurleila sakit giginya
    Nurleila jadi kecewa
    Mikirin soal pacarnya
    Nurleila..

    • Nurleila mau lari saja

    Mencari yang benar-benar cinta
    Oh Nurleila sudah tidak sabar
    Menanti yang mau melamar
    Nurleila..

    Ya, itulah problema
    Yang mesti diingat lagi
    Bercinta jangan terlalu lama
    Rasain kamu
    Sekarang gigit jari
    Makanya jadi pacar jangan plin plan

    back to *

    nurleila nuerleila nurleila nurleila, oooo….

    **
    Nah, sekarang Nurleila
    Ya, sudah ada yang punya
    Dan tak lagi sakit hatinya

    Rasain kamu
    Sekarang gigit jari
    Makanya jadi pacar jangan plin plan

    back to **

    nurleila nuerleila nurleila nurleila ….


    Nurlela – Rumpies


    http://celebrity.okezone.com/read/2010/07/19/34/354356/atiek-cb-kangen-nyanyi-lagi

    Atiek CB Kangen Nyanyi Lagi

    Senin, 19 Juli 2010 15:22 wib
    Johan Sompotan – Okezone

    JAKARTA – Delapan tahun sudah Atiek CB menetap di Amerika bersama suami dan anak-anaknya. Lama tidak menyanyi, penyanyi yang beken di era 80an ini ternyata merindukan bisa menyanyi lagi seperti dahulu.

    “Kadang-kadang ingin menyanyi lagi, tapi kayaknya susah kalau tinggal di Amerika karena manage-nya susah. Sudah beberapa kali saya coba dan itu harus dimulai di Indonesia,” ungkap Atiek yang ditemui di Studio RCTI, Kebon Jeruk, Jakarta Barat, Senin (19/7/2010).

    Saat ini, Atiek sedang berada di Tanah Air. Mantan istri Ronny Sianturi ini beralasan keberadaannya di Indonesia untuk membesuk ayahnya yang sakit. Bukan untuk berkarier musik lagi.

    “Saya di sini sekira 3 minggu. Ke sini bukan untuk nyanyi, tapi karena ayah saya sedang sakit.
    Kerinduan saya akan menyanyi enggak seperti ketika awal pindah ke Amerika. Lama-lama saya malah aneh mulai nyanyi lagi. Waktu awal sempat ditakut-takuti sama musisi selevel saya. Mereka bilang, enggak usah nyanyi lagi. Kita sudah ketuaan,” akunya.

    Diakuinya, kadang penyesalan datang karena telah meninggalkan dunia musik yang membesarkan namanya. “Kadang menyesal. Apalagi kalau hidupnya lagi susah di Amerika, nelangsa. Tapi kalau lihat anak-anak saya, rasanya semua impas. Makin berumur, kita kesampingkan ego kita. Anak-anak saya semua main musik. Tapi enggak mau jadi musisi,” pungkasnya.

    (ang)


    http://forum.tempointeraktif.com/node/947

    ATIEK CB – MAGMA YANG ENTAH KAPAN MELELEH LAGI

    traktor:

    Atiek CB adalah magma, yang sayangnya tanpa pemberitahuan, sekarang magma itu sudah tidak meleleh lagi. Bila di blantika musik Indonesia sekarang, baik yang sudah masuk jalur pro maupun yang masih di ajang ajang bakat banyak bibit unggul yang bakal bisa menggantikan Ruth Sahanaya atau Titi DJ. Sepertinya belum ada yang bisa mengeluarkan magma seperti Atiek CB.

    Saya menyukai suara sangat khas dan special Atiek CB. Bahkan sebalum saya punya duit untuk bisa beli kaset, saya sudah mendengar Risau, Kekang dan lain lain yang diputar kakak kakak saya. Terus ketika saya mulai remaja, lagu Optimis yang optimis banget lirik dan musiknya benar benar membius.
    Jadi sepenuhnya, sebelum saya puber pun Atiek CB itu sudah menjadi magma bagi saya.

    3 kekuatan Atiek menurut saya adalah

    1. Warna Suara
    Kalau boleh membandingkan, anda dengar Toni Braxton, lalu Madonna lanjut dengan Janis Joplin. Anda bayangkan ketiga karakter suara tersebut menyatu. Saya membayangkan Atiek CB.

    Apakah ini tidak berlebihan. Saya punya argumen bagus untuk mendukung rasa yang saya dapat. Ke Toni Braxton dulu.

    Perhatikan artikulasi pengucapan Toni Braxton yang sangat rendah. Artinya, dalam mengucapkan atau melafalkan lirik saat bernyanyi, suara yang dihasilkan relatif tidak jelas. Kadang kadang seperti geraman. Dan ini sexy. Cara menyanyi Atiek CB sedikit banyak seperti itu.

    Dan asal tahu saja, Atiek CB lebih senior dibandingkan Toni. Jadi perbandingan hanya berkisar pada warna suara. Bukan pada siapa meniru siapa.

    Kemudian bayangkan Madonna di awal awal karirnya dulu, disko dengan sentuhan rock sedikit. Terutama di lagu lagu lawas Madonna sebelum album Erotica. Dengarkan Like a Virgin, Material Girl atau Like a Prayer. Sengau dan kesan tidak nyampai suara mereka itu mirip. Dalam mendaki nada nada tinggi Atiek sering seperti itu.

    Dan (sebenarnya) kekurangan ini justru menjadi sexy di tenggorokan mereka. Tapi jujur, saya menilai kualitas dan skill menyanyi Atiek CB jauh diatas Madonna dulu. Entah kalau sekarang. Madonna adalah type perempuan ulet. Yang selalu berusaha untuk bisa. Dan dia mulai ‘bisa’ nyanyi sejak kursur menyanyi sejak menggarap film dan OST Evita.

    Lalu yang terakhir Janis Joplin. Total! Inilah yang ditampilkan Atiek CB. Soul, penjiwaan lagu yang tiada duanya. Atiek pada nomor nomor Balladnya selalu ngeblues dengan sentuhan pop yang kental tentunya. Dengarkan lagu ‘maafkan’ menurut saya. Dengar improvisasi habis habisan yang digeber Atiek di akhir lagu. Kadang improvisasinya tak perlu kata.

    Atiek meraung, menggeram, berteriak, mengeluarkan ekspresi, jiwa, penjiwaan, soul, sekualitas Janis Joplin. Namun tetap dengan gaya yang hanya Atiek CB yang bisa.

    Itulah kekuatan warna suara Atiek CB yang tiada duanya. Benar benar dalam 100 tahun, belum tentu ada penyanyi cewek Indonesia seperti dia. Lagu ‘Kisah Cintaku’ milik Chrisye, menjadi punya nilai yang lebih dalam dengan Atiek CB tampil disitu sebagai featuring, improvisasi di sela sela nyanyian sendu Chrisye

    2. Gaya
    Dengan suara yang teramat sexy (paling tidak bagi saya), Atiek sesuai jamannya adalah penyanyi dengan gaya tersexy. Sexy disini bukan harus buka bukaan. Atiek CB dalam berbusana tetap saya lihat bersahaja kok. Tapi entah bagaimana bisa, dalam kebersaha-annya itu tetap Atiek CB adalah yang tersexy.

    Sexynya itu luar dalam. Gaya menyanyi Atiek CB, body language sampai ke cara bernyanyi. Luar biasa sexynya. Belum ada penyanyi Indonesia cewek yang bisa menandingi Atiek Prasetyawati (lahir di Kediri, Jawa Timur, 25 Mei 1963; atau lebih dikenal dengan nama Atiek CB ini

    3. Selera Bermusik.
    Selera Atiek CB itu, kalau orang sekarang bilang, selera mahal. Dalam artian, seleranya itu bagus bagus. Atiek bisa masuk kolaborasi dengan banyak arranger dengan latar belakang warna musik yang beda beda. Dan yang keluar tetap karakter Atiek CB nya.

    Puncak ketenaran Atiek CB sebagai penyanyi solo adalah saat dia berkolaborasi dengan Youngky Suwarno. Youngky, dikenal banyak menggarap artis artis besar. Ita Purnama Sari, sebagai misal, lalau AB three. Kolaborasi Atiek CB dengan Youngky, terjadi di OST Catatan si Boy, Atiek nyanyi ‘Terserah Boy’ disitu.

    Lalu Youngky juga menggarap album ‘Dia’ yang waktu itu adalah hits besar. Lirik yang nakal, musik yang sangat enerjik, irama yang manis, dengan tentu saja vocal Atiek CB yang super sexy. Di lagu ini Atiek CB memamerkan ketawanya yang ‘ruar biasa’… Jarang penyanyi Indonesia ada yang bisa memperindah lagu dengan ketawa ngakak. Atiek CB itu langka.

    Lalu Atiek CB juga pernah jadi Polantas. Ini pas dia merilis album Berhentilah…. Serius? Tentu saja bercanda. Polantas kan kalau tilang suka bilang, ‘berhenti…” hehehehehe. Saya tidak tahu, apakah polantas polantas saat itu suka dengan lagu Berhentilah ini. Yang pasti, saya suka….

    Lalu album Magis. Ini saya rasa adalah Album Atiek CB yang digarap paling serius. Barisan personel KLa Project, Gilang dan Indra Lemana memperkuat album ini. Nomor ballad ‘Semua Tlah Berlalu’ beberapa tahun kemudian digarap ulang oleh Ruth Sahanaya.

    Oh iya, dalam hal lagu lagu Atiek CB digarap ulang oleh penyanyi lain, ada lagi yang ngetop. Antara Anyer dan Jakarta, karya Oddie Agam yang sukses didaur ulang oleh Sheila Majid, penyanyi cewek dari negri jiran, Malaysia.

    Sayang album magis ini terbentur masalah. Gambar palu arit yang terdapat di sampul album yang dikerjakan Dik Doank ini membuat album tersebut ditarik dari peredaran. Pasalnya, anda tahu sendiri, palu arit adalah lambang partai terlarang PKI. Orde Baru kan phobia PKI.

    Kemudian, bagusnya selera Atiek CB terlihat pada hit Maafkan itu. Lagu ini rasanya susah enak kalau bukan Atiek CB yang membawakan. Kalaupun enak, pasti tidak serenyah saat mendengarkan Atiek CB yang membawakan. Di lagu ini juga menurut saya, Atiek CB menggeber vocalnya sampai batas terakhir. Lagu sendu ini dimulai dari tarikan rendah, yang kemudian diakhiri dengan improvisasi dengan pencapaian nada nada paling tinggi yang bisa disentuh tenggorokan Atiek CB.

    Nyambung dari Hit tersebut, Atiek CB kerja sama dengan Indra Lesmana menggarap Benci Sendiri. Liriknya mirip dengan lagu Maafkan. Kisah wanita yang menjalin hubungan dengan pria lain. Sangat pas dengan karakter sexy yang ditampilkan Atiek CB. Lagu Benci Sendiri ini jadi lagu wajib mahasiswi pas saya kuliah dulu.

    Lalu Atiek juga sempat kolaborasi dengan Thomas R. Ini saat menggarap album Meditasi yang melejitkan Hit ‘Terapung’. Setelah itu Atiek CB masih menghasilkan album Aku Jadi Aku. Namun album ini ternyata kurang mendapat sambutan pasar. Seingat saya hampir tanpa promosi.

    Lalu terakhir. Atiek CB bertemu Dewiq. Inilah bagusnya selera musik Atiek CB yang saya maksud. Waktu itu siapa yang kenal Dewiq? Istri mantan gitaris Slank yang vocalnya ngeroc kaya Sheryl Crowl ini?…..
    Tapi Atiek CB bisa merasakan kuatnya jiwa bermusik Dewiq. Album Jangan Tinggalkan, menjadi album terakhir Atiek CB sebelum dia pindah ke Amerika Serikat, untuk menjadi ibu rumah tangga.

    Epilog

    Atiek telah tinggal di Amerika bersama suami Laurence Smith dan anak-anaknya selama 9 tahun belakangan. Perempuan yang gemar memakai kacamata gelap itu mengaku jarang bernyanyi di Amerika. Atiek CB sudah menentukan pilihan hidupnya. Menjadi ibu rumah tangga. Suatu pilihan yang memang patut kita hargai. Karena sebagai perempuan, dengan kehidupan glamour dunia artis yang pernah digelutinya. Bahkan pada gayanya yang selalu sexy. Atiek CB ternyata seorang ibu yang baik. Walau dalam satu kesempatan wawancara dengan TV lokal ketika dia berkunjung ke Indonesia, Atiek mengungkapkan, kadang saat lagi down, dia teringat juga masa masa jayanya menyanyi di Indonesia. Namun kecintaannya pada keluarga membuatnya bertahan dengan mengurus suami dan anaknya.

    Yah begitulah Atiek CB, keputusannya untuk menjadi seorang ibu yang total memperhatikan keluarga, menurut saya membuat dia terkesan semakin sexy. Tahun 2011 loh…. Apalagi kalau kita melihat kondisi ibu ibu artis tanah air sekarang.

    Namun dalam hati, saya tetap berharap. Suatu hari, magma itu akan meleleh lagi.

    NB: Untuk melihat gambar gambar album Atiek CB yang terkait di artikel ini silahkan ke sini: http://www.traktorlubis.blogspot.com/2011/03/atiek-cb-magma-yang-entah-kapan-meleleh.html


    http://hiburan.kompasiana.com/musik/2011/03/17/sensualitas-atiek-cb/

    Sensualitas Atiek CB

    REP | 17 March 2011 | 12:25

    Kacamata hitam, rambut lurus sebahu dan penampilan seksi adalah ciri khas Atiek CB pada era musik tahun 90’an. Nama aslinya adalah Atik Prasetyo dan berasal dari Kediri. CB dibelakang namanya adalah singkatan dari Child Brother, nama sebuah band anak-anak dimana Atiek pernah menjadi vokalisnya. Sebenarnya Atiek sudah mulai rekaman pada tahun 80’an, tetapi Atiek baru benar-benar menunjukkan eksistensinya dibursa musik Indonesia mulai awal tahun 1990 ketika tampil sangat beda membawakan lagu-lagu pop kreatif dan kontemporer, menyeruak dari barisan penyanyi-penyanyi perempuan lain yang lebih memilih menyanyikan lagu-lagu pop cengeng.

    Atiek CB tidak hanya bersuara khas, tetapi juga berpenampilan sensual. Misalnya pada video klip Dia, Atiek tampil dengan jaket dan rok mini ketat dari bahan kulit, bercengkerama dengan sejumlah pria berpenampilan macho disamping sebuah motor gede. Atau ketika memakai terusan mini dan berbaring tengkurap pada video Cemburu, Atiek terlihat sangat menggoda. Atiek CB memang salah satu penyanyi perempuan paling seksi saat itu, tetapi jauh dari kesan vulgar.

    Hanya cara berbusananya saja yang terkesan seksi (atau barangkali bisa disebut fashionable), sementara gerak-gerik dan ekspresi Atiek cenderung ekspresif menjiwai lagu yang sedang dibawakannya. Selain menghasilkan sejumlah hits diantaranya Maafkan (yang baru-baru ini dibawakan kembali oleh Yuni Shara), Dia, Suka Suka, Cemburu, Antara Anyer dan Jakarta (yang kemudian dinyanyikan kembali oleh Sheila Majid), Atiek juga bergabung bersama Vina Panduwinata, Malida dan Trie Utami dalam group Rumpies yg sukses mencetak hits Nurlela.

    Selain itu Atiek juga bergabung dengan kelompok 7 Bintang ( bersama Mus Mujiono, Deddy Dhukun, Fariz RM, Dian Pramana Putra, Trie Utami dan Malida) dengan hits Jalan Masih Panjang. Gayanya yang pecicilan dan agak hiperaktif diatas panggung maupun dilayar kaca membuat sosok Atiek CB selalu gampang menarik perhatian, bahkan ketika sedang tampil ramai-ramai.

    Tak hanya sukses di karir solo dan keroyokannya, Atiek yang saat itu pacaran dengan anggota Trio Libels : Ronny Sianturi juga sukses dalam proyek duet bersama sang pacar lewat lagu : Kau & Aku. Selain itu Atiek CB juga menjadi backing vocal pada album Jumpa Permata milik Chrisye. Begitu besarnya nilai jual nama Atiek CB sehingga pihak label dan produser rekaman tersebut merasa sangat penting untuk mencantumkan tulisan ‘Guest Star : Atiek CB’ pada cover album tersebut.

    Dan memang vokal Atiek pada album tersebut bukan hanya sekedar tempelan tetapi memang memberi kontribusi. Dengarkanlah bagaimana suara Atiek dengan gaya mendesah yang melankolis pada lagu Kisah Cintaku. Jangan lupakan juga karakter suara Atiek yang tiba-tiba sangat terdengar genit dan nakal pada lagu Ada Cinta. Meski hanya sebatas backing vokal, tetapi setelah mendengar kedua lagu tersebut pendengar tidak hanya akan mengingat Chrisye, tetapi juga Atiek karena kekuatan vokalnya yang memberi nilai lebih pada kedua lagu tersebut.

    Tahun 1992, Atiek sempat terkena masalah. Cover albumnya yang berjudul Magis disinyalir mencantumkan simbol sebuah partai terlarang. Akhirnya album yang grafisnya dikerjakan oleh Dik Doank itu harus ditarik dari peredaran. Sungguh sebuah pukulan telak buat perjalanan karir Atiek CB karena pada saat yang sama single andalan dari album tersebut Kau Dimana sedang merajai tangga lagu terpopuler di radio-radio dan televisi. Begitu kecewanya Atiek hingga dalam sebuah wawancara dengan sebuah tabloid, Atiek sempat mengaku frustasi dan berencana mengundurkan diri dari dunia tarik suara.

    Untunglah rencana mengundurkan diri itu tak pernah direalisasikan Atiek karena selanjutnya Atiek mencoba bangkit kembali dengan album kompilasi hits berjudul Benci Sendiri, kemudian disusul dengan album Meditasi yang menghasilkan hits karya bassist Gigi : Thomas Ramdhan yang berjudul Terapung.

    Secara musikal, materi lagu dan album Atiek CB cenderung punya kwalitas. Sangat jarang Atiek CB terjebak menyanyikan lagu-lagu kacangan karena Atiek beruntung didukung oleh musisi-musisi handal yang sudah terkenal reputasinya antara lain : Youngky Suwarno, Cecep AS, Adi Kla, Indra Lesmana, dll.

    Salah satu lagu Atiek yang paling terkenal yang juga adalah soundtrack film laris pada tahun 90’an Catatan Si Boy adalah lagu yang berjudul Terserah Boy. Begitu populernya lagu ini sampai lumayan sering dibawakan kembali oleh calon-calon penyanyi yang sedang mengikuti kontes bakat ditelevisi, mulai dari ajang Asia Bagus sampai Indonesian Idol. Lagu ini juga pernah diterjemahkan ke dalam bahasa Inggris dengan judul Get Into The Heat yang berhasil menghantar trio AB Three menjadi juara sebuah festival internasional di Eropa. Selain itu AB Three juga kemudian menyanyikan kembali lagu lawas milik Atiek CB yang dulu juga tidak kalah populer : Optimis.

    Sudah lama Atiek CB tidak lagi muncul dipanggung musik tanah air. Kabarnya saat ini Atiek sudah menetap di Amerika mengikuti suaminya yang berkewarganegaraan Amerika. Atiek adalah aset berharga musik Indonesia yang kuat secara karakter penampilan maupun vokal. Indonesia masih membutuhkan penyanyi seperti Atiek : yang sensual dan bersuara khas tanpa harus berpenampilan yang aneh-aneh dan bertingkah yang neko-neko.


    Atiek CB – Maafkan


    Atiek CB – Discography

    http://www.indowebster.web.id/showthread.php?t=236237&s=6651f3fcc8792d7d0b4b00cb3ebd3816

    http://www.indowebster.web.id/showthread.php?t=236237&page=2

    Diskografi Atiek CB
    woky94, 30-01-2012, 02:07 PM

    Atiek Prasetyawati (lahir di Kediri, Jawa Timur, 25 Mei 1963; umur = itung sendiri ;p) atau lebih dikenal dengan nama Atiek CB adalah penyanyi Indonesia yang populer di era 80-an. Penyanyi yang indentik dengan kacamata ini populer lewat lagu-lagunya antara lain: Suka-Suka, Optimis, Terserah Boy, Kekang, Risau, Benci Sendiri dan Terapung. Selain itu Atiek CB juga pernah bergabung dalam grup vokal Rumpies yang memopulerkan lagu Nurlela. Pada tahun 90-an Atiek CB pernah membuat heboh publik karena pada sampul albumnya terdapat gambar Palu dan Arit yang tak lain tak bukan adalah lambang komunis. Atiek CB adalah mantan istri dari penyanyi Ronny Sianturi, salah satu personel dari grup musik Trio Libels. Kini Atiek CB tinggal di Amerika bersama suami keduanya serta anak-anaknya.

    Diskografi

    Solo
    1981, Nusantaraku

    1981, Nusantara 2

    1982, Nusantara 7

    1983, Ilusi Pagi
    Biarkan Aku Merindu
    Optimis
    1984, Transisi
    1985, Akh!
    1986, Antara Anyer dan Jakarta

    1986, Di Sudut Kemegahan Hidupnya
    1987, Bersuka Cita
    1988, Suka Suka
    1990, Dia
    1991, Kekang

    Aku
    Johnny Oh Johnny
    1991, Maafkan
    1992, Setelah Kusadar
    1992, Berhentilah
    1993, Magis
    Kau Dimana
    Benci Sendiri
    Terapung
    1997, Meditasi
    Aku Jadi Aku

    Bersama Rumpies
    Nurlela – 1989
    Nurlela Tabahkan Hatimu
    Aku Rindu Suasana Jatuh Cinta
    Pacarku

    Bersama 7 Bintang
    Jalan Masih Panjang
    Jangan Menambah Dosa
    Semua Milik Tuhan

    Kolaborasi lain
    Cinta Diundi (Besama Malyda)
    Kau dan Aku (Bersama Ronny Sianturi)
    Kusadari (Bersama Fariz RM & Malyda)

    Album lain
    Album lain

    1989 – Album singel Nicky Astria, “Cinta Di Kota Tua” menyanyikan lagu “Aku Punya Cita Cita” duet bersama Achmad Albar

    1989 – Album Catatan Si Boy 3 lagu “Terserah Boy” karya Younky Soewarno & Deddy Dhukun

    1989 – Album Oddie Agam, “10 Best + 2″ lagu “Antara Anyer Dan Jakarta”

    1990 – Album Sophia Latjuba, “Semoga Kau Tahu” bersama Malyda menyanyikan lagu “CINTA DIUNDI” karya Arie Satyawan & Eppy Budaya

    1990 – Album Nourma Yunita, “Saleha” bersama Ikang Fawzi menyanyikan lagu “KEBERSAMAAN” karya Octav Sugess

    1990 – Album Hening, lagu “SUKA SUKA” karya Andi Mapajalos dan “APA LAGI” karya Ryan Kyoto & Wacha HS

    Last edited by woky94; 02-02-2012 at 02:48 PM.

    1983, Ilusi Pagi
    01. Ilusi Pagi
    02. Untuk Dirimu
    03. Persahabatan
    04. Kumbang Desa
    05. Tante Sun
    06. Sentuhan
    07. Biarkan Aku Merindu
    08. Tak Habis Pikir
    09. Ilusi Biru
    10. Debar Cinta
    11. Selamat Pagi Dunia

    Last edited by woky94; 31-01-2012 at 10:01 PM.

    1984, Transisi
    01. Risau
    02. Egois
    03. Dahaga
    04. Tebak Menebak
    05. Gelisah
    06. Satu Dalam Cinta
    07. Sendu
    08. Dewa Asmara
    09. Nyanyian Buat Kita
    10. Hasrat Cinta

    Last edited by woky94; 01-02-2012 at 01:27 PM.


    1985, Akh!
    01. Akh (Cecep AS)
    02. Permohonan (Ancha V.M.Haraz)
    03. Dibibirku Ada Cinta (Yuke N.S)
    04. Diantara Kita (BJ. Riyanto)
    05. Botol Botol Kosong (Oetje F.Tekol)
    06. Tantangan Hidup (Subagio Salat)
    07. Garis Kasih (Andy Nasution)
    08. Daun daun Racun (Dede Putra Anwar)
    09. Pengasingan (Subagio Salat)
    10. Apa Lagi (Dodo Zakaria)


    1986, Di Sudut Kemegahan Hidupnya
    01. DISUDUT KEMEGAHAN HIDUPNYA
    02. DI DALAM KHAYALKU
    03. DETIK-DETIK
    04. KETABAHAN
    05. TAHAN DULU DONG
    06. MILIKILAH CINTAKU
    07. DETIK-DETIK PENANTIAN
    08. KARENA UANG
    09. PENUH CELA
    10. MENGGAPAI CINTAKU YANG BARU

    Last edited by woky94; 02-02-2012 at 08:58 AM.


    1987, Bersuka Cita
    01. “Aku” (Adjie Soetama)
    02. “Bersuka Cita” (Adjie Soetama)
    03. “Duniaku” (Cecep As)
    04. “Kucinta Padamu” (Ricky Basuki)
    05. “Emosi” (Ancha Haiz)
    06. “Ku Tak Sabar Lagi” (Oddie Agam)
    07. “Lagu Yang Tersisa” (Irianti Erningpraja & Ferina)
    08. “Aku Malu” (Andy Mapajalos)
    09. “Ada Di Matamu” (James F. Sundah)


    1988, Suka Suka
    01. Suka Suka (Andi Mapajalos)
    02. Resah (Erwin Gutawa)
    03. Jangan Lagi (Ricky Basuki)
    04. Tanpa Sadar (Erwin Gutawa & Lulu Gutawa)
    05. Ramalan Bintang (Oddie Agam)
    06. Jangan Kembali (Randy Anwar)
    07. Jejak Jejak (Dodo Zakaria)
    08. Stop (Bagoes AA)
    09. Tabah (Ricky Basuki)
    10. Apa Lagi (Ryan Kyoto)


    1990, Dia
    01. Dia (Youngky Soewarno / Deddy Dhukun)
    02. Cemburu (Youngky Soewarno / Tommy Marie)
    03. Kau Telah Pergi (Erwin Gutawa / Lulu Gutawa)
    04. Jangan Ditunda (Indra Lesmana / Titi DJ)
    05. Sensasi (Indra Lesmana, Andy Ayunir, Mira Lesmana)
    06. Sama Seperti Dulu (Indra Lesmana / Titi DJ)
    07. Gelitik Cinta (Andi Mapajalos)
    08. Kecewa (Moesya Yunus / Atiek CB)
    09. Inilah Saya (KLa Project)
    10.Hatiku Merintih (Indra Lesmana / Mira Lesmana)

    1991, Maafkan
    1. Maafkan (Cecep AS)
    2. Inilah Saya (Adi/Lilo)
    3. Di Bibirku Ada Cinta (Yuke NS)
    4. Sama Seperti Dulu (Indra Lesmana)
    5. Risau (Cecep AS)
    6. Gelitik Cinta (Andi Mapajalos)
    7. Di Antara Kita (BJ Riyanto)
    8. Permohonan (Ancha VH Haraz)
    9. Apa Lagi (Dodo Zakaria)
    10. Cemburu (Youngky Soewarno)


    1992, Setelah Kusadar
    01. Setelah Ku Sadar
    02. Terserah
    03. Mengapa Terjadi
    04. Kikuk
    05. Resah
    06. Sesungguhnya
    07. Mata Lelaki
    08. Percuma Saja


    1992, Magis
    01. Kau Di Mana
    02. Sampai Sekian
    03. Magis
    04. Sebuah Janji
    05. Lari
    06. Aku Bukan Kamu
    07. Sesaat Saja
    08. Semua T’lah Berlalu


    1992, Berhentilah
    1. Berhentilah (Cecep AS)
    2. Percuma Saja (Ryan Kyoto)
    3. Apa Lagi (Ryan Kyoto & Wacha HS)
    4. Cemburu (Younky Soewarno & Deddy Dhukun)
    5. Tabah (Ricky Basuki)
    6. Sesungguhnya (Yuke NS & Iwang Noorsaid)
    7. Permohonan (Ancha VH Haraz)
    8. Di Bibirku Ada Cinta (Yuke NS)
    9. Mengapa Terjadi (Dadang S. Manaf)
    10. Tanpa Sadar (Erwin Gutawa & Lulu Gutawa)


    1992, Kau dan Aku (Bersama Ronny Sianturi)
    01. Kau Dan Aku
    02. Edan
    03. Benar – Benar Cinta
    04. Berdua
    Last edited by woky94; 02-02-2012 at 08:30 AM.


    1997, Meditasi
    1997, Meditasi
    01. Terapung
    02. Kau Masih Disana
    03. Meditasi
    04. Geli
    05. Hatiku
    06. Dari Hati
    07. Lupakan
    08. Bercerminah
    09. Yang Hilang


    http://www.kapanlagi.com/showbiz/selebriti/tingggal-di-as-atiek-cb-lebih-banyak-mencuci-piring-v9ertul.html

    Tingggal di AS, Atiek CB Lebih Banyak Mencuci Piring

    Senin, 27 Februari 2006 15:09

    Kapanlagi.com – Sudah hampir empat tahun di Amerika Serikat dan tidak meluncurkan album baru, kemampuan olah suara biduanita Atiek CB tetap tidak luntur. Pada acara perayaan Koalisi Komunitas Asia-Amerika di Chicago Sabtu lalu, Atiek ikut menghibur para tamu yang umumnya warga keturunan Asia dan para pejabat di negara bagian AS tersebut.

    Tetap dengan kacamata dan rambut yang tergerai menutupi sebagian wajahnya, penampilan dan kualitas sauara Atiek tetap seperti pada masa puncak kepolerannya di tahun 80-90-an. Pada perayaaan Asian-American tahun 2006 itu, kebetulan Indonesia menjadi tuan rumah. Ketua Panitianya, Roosy Miller yang juga asal Indonesia, memintanya mengisi acara hiburan.

    “Aku enggak banyak kegiatan menyanyi lagi kok, kegiatan aku lebih banyak cuci piring di rumah,” kata Atiek ketika ditemui di sela-sela acara. Pemilik lagu Maafkanlah Aku dan Teman yang albumnya sangat populer di awal 90-an itu, kini tinggal di kota Wilmington, Negara Bagian Delaware, bersama suaminya yang warga AS, Laurent Smith, dan dua anaknya, Kendo (11) dan Kina (7).

    Mengurus suami dan anak-anak kini menjadi menjadi prioritas utama kegiatan wanita kelahiran Kediri 25 Mei 1964 itu. Hal itu juga yang menyebabkan ia tidak terlalu berambisi untuk mencoba go internasional di Amerika. “Sempat juga ada tawaran bikin album lagi di Jakarta, tapi masih pikir-pikir dulu. Soalnya aku enggak tahan lama-lama ninggalin anak,” kata Atiek yang logat Jawa Timur-annya masih kental.

    “Ini aja baru dua hari ke Chicago, anak aku nelpon-nelpon terus minta mamanya cepet pulang,” tambah mantan isteri penyanyi Trio Libels, Ronny Sianturi, itu. Meskipun demikian, di kalangan komunitas Indonsia di Amerika, nama Atiek CB tetap dikenal. Ia masih sering diminta untuk tampil pada acara-acara yang diselenggarakan KBRI atau Konsulat-Konsulat Jenderal RI di AS, dan oleh kalangan masyarakat asal Indonesia saat ada festival atau perayaan HUT-RI atau.

    Misalnya tahun lalu di New York, ia ikut mengisi acara penggalangan dana tsunami dan juga menemani artis-artis Indonesia yang kebetulan datang. Dengan demikian, kedekatan Atiek dengan Indonesia tetap terpelihara meskipun tinggal di lingkungan Amerika. (*/erl)


    http://www.mail-archive.com/ppiindia@yahoogroups.com/msg63130.html

    [ppiindia] Hidup susah di Amrik, Atik CB super ngirit

    Tribun Timur Makassar – Sabtu, 24-05-2008 17:58:31 -0700

    Hidup Serba Ngirit: Penyesalan Atiek CB di Amerika

    JAUH-JAUH datang dari perantauan di  Amerika Serikat, sesampainya di Jakarta, penyanyi lawas Atik  Prasetyawati atau ngetop dengan sebutan Atiek CB, membawa cerita menyedihkan. Lima tahun merantau di negeri yang dipimpin Presiden George W Bush itu, hidup Atiek serba ngirit dalam segala hal.

    Belanja pakaian irit, belanja  makanan irit, jalan-jalan tak sebebas ketika masih berkarir di Jakarta, pokoknya serba berhemat! Itu semua karena selama di Amerika, Atiek tidak berpenghasilan besar seperti masih di Jakarta. Di Amerika, hidup Atiek sepenuhnya ‘nodong’ dari sang suami, pria bule bernama Lawrence. Kalau dulu Atiek biasa hidup glamour lantaran bisa meraup banyak duit dari dapur rekaman dan manggung di berbagai undangan, di Amerika Atiek kehilangan ‘lahan basahnya’ itu.

    Karirnya nyanyi yang mandeg di negeri rantau praktis membuat kantongnya tak setebal dulu lagi. Karena hidupnya cuma bisa bergantung dari sang suami, tentu Atiek benar-benar mengubah gaya hidup mewahnya menjadi pola hidup sederhana. “Lima tahun di Amerika, saya benar-benar kehilangan pekerjaan yang amat saya cintai (menyanyi). Praktis, saya juga harus mengubah gaya hidup saya,” kata Atiek CB yang belum lama ini menyempatkan diri datang ke Jakarta, khusus untuk memenuhi undangan menyanyi bersama kelompok vokal ‘Rumpies’ dalam konser tunggal Vina Panduwinata.

    Lima tahun lalu, ketika sang suami mengajaknya ke Amerika, Atiek CB benar-benar bahagia. Waktu itu terbayang di benaknya tentang indahnya mencicipi suasana berbeda di negeri seberang. Namun adaptasi Atiek CB ternyata cukup berat, termasuk dalam hal berkomunikasi. Penyanyi yang pada era 1980-an meroket lewat lagu-lagu hits Terserah Boy, Suka-Suka dan Maafkan itu mengaku tak bisa dengan cepat lancar berbahasa Inggris.

    “Di sana (Amerika) saya ngomong  bahasa Indonesia terus,” tutur mantan istri personel Trio Libels,  Ronny Sianturi, itu. Namun Atiek tidak menegaskan apakah dirinya sudah memutuskan untuk kembali ke Jakarta dan menekuni dunia rekaman yang sudah membesarkan namanya sekitar 15 tahun yang lalu.

    Yang jelas, Atiek sangat merindukan  dunia panggung. Namun karena sudah lama tak menyanyi di depan banyak  orang, Atiek secara jujur merasakan kini agak canggung menyanyi  sendirian. “Untungnya, aku diundang nyanyi di Jakarta kali ini kan dalam rangka reuni The Rumpies, nyanyinya rame-rame bareng Malida, Trie Utami, Mbak Vina (Panduwinata), dan banyak yang lain,” ujar wanita kelahiran Kediri Jawa Timur, 25 Maret 1963.

    Identik Kacamata Hitam

    LAMA menghilang dari panggung, begitu kembali ke Jakarta Atiek masih belum menanggalkan ciri khas kacamata hitam yang tak pernah lepas ketika nongol di depan umum.

    Bedanya, kalau di era 1980-an, kacamata Atiek benar-benar gelap, sampai tak terlihat sepasang matanya, kini jenis kacamata yang dia pilih agak terang.

    Selain terkenal dengan ciri khas  kacamata hitam, jaket jeans dan gaya berjingkraknya yang khas, Atiek  pernah membuat berita lantaran perceraiannya dengan Roni Sianturi, personel Trio Libels.


    http://www.gpdi-sejahtera.com/articles/testimonials/41-ronnie-sianturi–lelah-menjadi-orang-tidak-baik.html

    Ronnie Sianturi : Lelah Menjadi Orang Tidak Baik

    Posted by GPdI-Sejahtera Online Team
    Friday, 28 November 2008 14:36

    Seorang perempuan berambut lurus dan bermata sipit duduk bersimpuh sambil menangis tersedu-sedu di hadapan suaminya. Sementara, sang suami dengan garangnya melontarkan berjuta makian dan sumpah serampah bak berondongan peluru yang dimuntahkan senapan. Karena tak tahan mendengarnya, si perempuan itu pun beringsut meninggalkan sang suami dan berusaha menghindarnya dengan naik ke atap lemari.

    Melihat kelakuan sang isteri, pria berbadan tegap itu terlihat gusar lalu dengan nafasnya yang memburu ia bergegas menghampiri dan menarik isterinya turun. Adegan selanjutnya pun dapat dibayangkan, pukulan dan tamparan segera mendarat di tubuh perempuan mungil bersuara serak yang masih terus menangis itu.

    Ini bukan merupakan bagian dari sebuah babak dalam sinetron tetapi benar-benar suatu kejadian dalam salah satu babak kehidupan nyata seorang pria bernama Ronaldus Parasian Sianturi yang kemudian dikenal dengan Ronnie Sianturi.

    Dan, si perempuan malang itu tak lain adalah Atiek CB, lady rocker Indonesia yang terkenal di tahun 80-an, yang pernah menjadi isterinya. “Saya bukan suami yang baik, sebelum istri saya mengiba minta maaf saya tidak akan pernah berhenti mengejarnya,” kenang Ronnie dengan nada penyesalan.

    Ungkapan penyesalan itu meluncur dari bibir salah satu personil Trio Libels dalam acara KKR yang digelar oleh sebuah gereja di Yogyakarta menggugurkan kandungan Istri dan Overdosis.

    Sore itu, di hadapan ratusan jemaat Ronnie bagai kembali memutar film kehidupannya di masa lalu yang bergelimang dosa. Ronnie mengaku, dulu ia memang tidak sungguh-sungguh mendalami kekristenan. Akibatnya, ia tidak bisa menerangkan pada isterinya -yang memang berbeda keyakinan- tentang keistemewaan seorang pengikut Kristus.

    Rumah tangga mereka pun tidak diberkati Roh Kudus. Pertengkaran selalu menghiasi rumah mereka. Setiap kali Atiek berbuat kesalahan, Ronnie selalu memberondongnya dengan kata-kata kotor dan caci maki disertai pukulan dan tamparan. Bahkan kadang jika masih kurang puas, tendangan pun ikut mendarat di tubuh mungil Atiek.

    Sebagai seorang suami, Ronnie tidak bisa memberikan ketenangan dan rasa aman pada isterinya. Dengan alasan belum siap punya anak, ia pernah meminta Atiek menggugurkan kandungannya. Karenanya, ketika penyanyi asal Kediri itu minta cerai, Ronnie langsung mengabulkannya. Ia menyadari betul kekurangannya sebagai seorang suami.

    Kehilangan pasangan hidup sering membuat orang depresi, itu pula yang terjadi pada Ronnie. Ketika berpisah dengan Atiek CB, ia merasa limbung karena tidak memiliki pegangan. Tak kuat dengan kesepian yang sering menderanya, ia lari pada minuman keras dan mengkonsumsi obat-obatan terlarang, termasuk shabu-shabu.

    Tapi itu toh tetap tidak bisa menyegarkan kekeringan batinnya. Saat itulah, untuk pertama kalinya ia merasakan bagaimana rasa susah itu. Setelah sebelumnya, ia hampir memiliki segalanya. Kekayaan, ketenaran, dan juga isteri. Ronnie meraih kesuksesan di usia relatif sangat muda.

    Bersama Trio Libels, group yang ia bentuk bersama Yani dan Edwin Manansang, teman sekolahnya di SMA 15 Jakarta, ia berhasil memantapkan langkahnya sebagai penyanyi. Popularitas pun dapat dicapainya dengan cepat. Suara merdu di dukung dengan badan tegap dan wajah tampan membuat Ronnie kian berjaya di jagad hiburan.

    Setelah sukses di dunia musik, ia melebarkan sayapnya dengan merambah seni peran dan presenter. Selama bertahun-tahun, wajahnya kita akrabi sebagai pembawa kuis Piramida di RCTI. Pelebaran karir itu tentu saja membuat pundi-pundinya penuh, tapi hanya dalam beberapa tahun semuanya hampir musnah.

    Keterikatannya pada obat-obatan nyaris menghancurkan hidupnya. Uang hasil kerja kerasnya terkuras untuk membeli bubuk maut itu. Karirnya pun nyaris tamat, tawaran untuk main sinetron ataupun undangan untuk membawakan sebuah acara jarang menghampirinya. Hari-hari dilewatinya dengan memasak shabu-shabu di kamarnya. Dalam sehari, ia bisa menghisap shabu-shabu hingga tiga kali. Akibatnya, ia sering teler.

    Hingga pada suatu hari di tahun 1998, Ronnie mengalami overdosis yang menyebabkan dirinya hampir tidak bisa bernafas, saat itulah ia baru kembali menyebut nama Yesus, “Tuhan Yesus, tolong saya”. Ajaib, beberapa saat kemudian ia dapat bernapas kembali. “Terima kasih, Tuhan,” jeritnya kegirangan.

    Saat itulah ia baru menyadari, sejak umur 18 hingga 34 tahun saat kejadian itu, ia tidak pernah mengucap syukur atas semua pemberian Tuhan. Kejadian itu menjadi sebuah titik balik bagi kehidupan Ronnie. Ia kembali ingat akan Sang Pencipta yang telah memberikan segalanya. Sejak itulah, ia mulai terjun untuk pelayanan dan sering menyaksikan kasih Tuhan dalam hidupnya.

    Langit malam kota Yogyakarta kian kelam, BAHANA masih duduk di lobby Hotel Melia Purosani, sambil sesekali mengamati jarum jam yang terus bergerak dengan perasaan gelisah. Beberapa menit kemudian, tampak Opel Blazer berhenti di depan hotel. Seorang pria berpostur altelis, berkulit putih bersih dan bersorot mata tajam turun dari mobil.

    Ah, kegelisahan kami pun pudar karena orang yang dinantikan muncul. “Aduh maaf ya menunggu terlalu lama, tadi saya diajak makan dulu,” ujar Ronnie ramah seraya mengulurkan tangannya pada kami. Sebentar kemudian terjadilah obrolan panjang dengan BAHANA diiringi musik lembut yang mengalun di lobby yang masih tampak ramai itu.

    Dengan gaya yang lebih santai dan akrab, pria lulusan D III Manajemen Perbankan STIE Perbanas ini bercerita tentang kehidupan barunya setelah bertobat. Setelah mengutamakan Tuhan dalam hidupnya, ia merasa memiliki hidup yang sangat indah, tidak ada rasa gelisah dan khawatir tentang apa pun juga.

    Yang ada hanyalah rasa damai dan suka cita memenuhi seluruh relung hati dan itu terpancar lewat sorotan mata dan kata-kata yang terucap dari mulutnya. Menurut orang-orang terdekatnya, Ronnie yang sekarang lebih rendah hati, mau mendengarkan, dan bersedia mengalah.

    Maju Terus Meski Masih Sering Jatuh Bangun

    Selama empat tahun terakhir, ada sesuatu yang berbeda dari pria kelahiran Makassar, 6 September 1966 ini. Ia telah meninggalkan kehidupan malam, alkohol, dan rokok yang semula sangat diakrabinya. Ya, semenjak berkomitmen untuk terlibat dalam kegiatan pelayanan, Ronnie memang bertekad untuk menjadi orang yang lebih baik.

    Karena itu, ia meninggalkan semua kebiasaannya yang tidak sehat. Kini, kebiasaan lamanya, diganti dengan bangun pagi dan mengakrabi firman Tuhan setiap hari. Mengawali hari dengan doa dan membaca firman menjadi sebuah aktivitas yang tidak pernah ditinggalkan Ronnie. Karena saat itulah, lanjut Ronnie, Tuhan ingin bicara sesuatu pada kita.

    Hingga usianya 35 tahun, empat tahun yang lalu, ia merasa melakukan banyak hal yang sia-sia dan tidak benar di mata Tuhan. Setelah dipulihkan, ia memiliki kerinduan menghabiskan sisa waktu di hidupnya saat ini untuk mengejar kekudusan di dalam Tuhan. Ia tak mau mati sia-sia. “Jangan sampai karena keteledoranku atau ketidaktaatanku, aku jatuh lagi ke kehidupanku yang lama,” jelas pria penggemar buah dan jus sayuran itu.

    Yang sekarang menjadi perhatiannya adalah bagaimana melayani Tuhan dalam keadaan yang benar-benar kudus, ia merasa pelayanannya akan sia-sia jika ia tidak hidup kudus dan selalu jatuh bangun. “Aku tidak mau jika kesaksianku dapat menjadi berkat bagi orang lain sedangkan kehidupan pribadiku sendiri tidak menjadi berkat bagi diriku sendiri,” katanya bijak.

    Tapi, Ronnie mengakui ia masih sering jatuh bangun tetapi ia tidak mau mempersalahkan dirinya terlalu dalam karena ia sadar pada dasarnya manusia memang sudah berdosa. Ia menganggap goncangan-goncangan yang ia dapatkan akan membuat hidupnya lebih indah. “Ibarat gula di dalam teh, jika tidak diaduk-aduk maka teh itu tidak akan menjadi manis,” ujarnya sedikit puitis.

    Ronnie memaknai goncangan-goncangan dalam hidupnya itu sebagai adukan yang akan mempermanis hidupnya. Meski banyak goncangan, Ronnie tetap menjaga supaya roh takut akan Tuhan dalam hidupnya itu jangan sampai hilang.

    Merindukan Pasangan Hidup yang ?.

    Seluruh kejadian yang pernah ia alami membuat Ronnie banyak melakukan refleksi. Itu pula yang membuat Ronnie kini lebih berhati-hati dalam melangkah, termasuk dalam memilih pasangan hidup lagi. Selama berumah tangga dengan Atiek CB ia merasa tidak bisa menjadi suami yang baik karena tidak bisa memberikan rasa damai dan aman pada sang istri. Kini, ia tidak mau gagal untuk kedua kalinya. “Saya tidak mau jatuh untuk kedua kali.

    Saat ini saya merasa Tuhan sedang memproses saya untuk mengubah hal-hal yang tidak bagus di dalam diri saya menjadi sesuatu yang lebih berarti,” katanya tenang. Ronnie menyadari masa pertobatannya yang baru empat tahun masih terlalu singkat dibandingkan dengan hidup kelam yang telah dijalani selama puluhan tahun itu.

    Karena itu, ia sangat membutuhkan kehadiran seorang pasangan hidup yang sungguh-sungguh mencintai Tuhan dan mampu membawa dirinya lebih dekat lagi kepada-Nya. Ia kini sedang belajar mencari dan memahami kehendak Tuhan dalam hidupnya. Selama ini ia hanya taat dan patuh kepada Tuhan.

    Jika sampai sekarang, ia belum menemukan sosok wanita yang tepat untuk mendampingi hidupnya, itu dimaknai Ronnie bahwa Tuhan memang belum memberikan seseorang yang tepat buatnya. Dan, ia sangat mengimani waktu Tuhan adalah waktu yang paling tepat dan indah buat hidupnya.

    Ingin Jadi Orang Baik

    Jika ditanya apa obsesinya saat ini, Ronnie pasti akan melontarkan empat kata ini, “ingin menjadi orang baik”. “Saya capek menjadi orang tidak baik,” ujarnya dengan mimik serius. Tapi ia mengakui untuk menjadi orang baik, dibutuhkan suatu perjuangan yang cukup berat. Pasalnya, ketika ia sedang ingin menjadi orang baik malah hal yang tidak baik sering ia lakukan.

    Namun, Ronnie beruntung memiliki bapak rohani yang dengan setia selalu mengingatkan manakala kehidupan rohaninya mulai mundur. Untuk menjaga itu, Ronnie berusaha memberi waktu yang banyak bagi Tuhan baik melalui doa maupun pujian. Dan, itu bisa dilakukannya dimana saja.

    Doa menjadi kekuatan utama buat Ronnie dalam menghadapi hari-harinya. Jika sering meninggalkan kegiatan ini maka bisa dipastikan ia akan lebih mudah untuk tergoda dan jatuh lagi dalam dosa. Ronnie menyakini, ketika kita memiliki persekutuan yang indah dengan Tuhan maka kita akan memiliki kepekaan rohani yang lebih.

    Malam makin larut, alunan musik lembut masih terdengar sementara lobby mulai terlihat lebih sepi ditinggalkan oleh pengunjungnya satu persatu. BAHANA pun segera mengakhiri obrolan dengan pria yang makin tampak matang di usianya menjelang 40 itu. Semoga ia dapat mewujudkan obsesinya yang terlihat sederhana tetapi sungguh mulia itu, ingin menjadi orang baik?

    (source: Bahana Online)


     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 9:10 AM on 2012/06/01 Permalink  

    Kekhususan Otonomi Papua

    By Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 1 June 2012

    1. 2009, tkp2e-dak.org, Dana Otonomi Khusus Pertahun Provinsi Papua, 2002-2008
    2. 2009, tkp2e-dak.org, Dana Otonomi Khusus Pertahun Provinsi Papua Barat, 2002-2008
    3. 201002191955, starberita.com, Duh, UU No 21/2001 Rugikan Pertamina
    4. 201005251133, eprints.undip.ac.id, Analisis Keuangan Daerah Provinsi Papua dengan Berlakunya Otonomi Khusus
    5. 20100804, tanahpapua.com, Mendagri: Jangan Salah Artikan Evaluasi Otsus Papua
    6. 20101030, tabloidjubi.com, Evaluasi Otsus Harus Libatkan Rakyat Papua
    7. 201110271816, regional.kompas.com, Evaluasi Otsus Papua!
    8. 201111302143, bisnis.com, Kemdagri segera tuntaskan evaluasi otsus Papua
    9. 201112020912, bisnis.com, Boediono kembali pimpin rapat pembangunan Papua
    10. 201112022055, nusantara.tvonenews.tv, Pemerintah Susun Hasil Evaluasi Otsus Papua
    11. 201112052244, bintangpapua.com, Tahun 2012,  Papua Digenlontorkan Dana Otsus Rp  8 Triliun
    12. 201112061945, waspada.co.id, Kemdagri rilis evaluasi Otsus Papua
    13. 201112160945, kbkorandonews.com, Otsus Papua-Aceh Hadapi Hambatan Klasik dan Benturan Kepentingan
    14. 20111223, tabloidjubi.net, Inilah Kunci Pelaksanaan dan Implementasi Otsus Papua
    15. 20120309, suarapapua.com, DC Uncen: Otsus Tidak Gagal, Tapi Perlu Evaluasi
    16. 20120320, tabloidjubi.com, Stop Bicara Evaluasi Otsus, Segera Gelar Dialog
    17. 201203220129, banjarmasin.tribunnews.com, Intervensi Asing di Kenaikan BBM
    18. 201203232028, majalahpotretindonesia.com, Mengusut Penyimpangan Dana Otsus
    19. 20120507, tabloidjubi.com, Pendidikan Papua, Malang Nian Nasibmu!

    http://www.tkp2e-dak.org/

    Tim Koordinasi Penyusunan Kebijakan Perencanaan Pemantauan dan Evaluasi DAK

    BAPPENAS, TKPKP2E-DAK BAPPENAS


    http://www.tkp2e-dak.org/dataotsusprov.asp?kdp=9400&hit=&dkd=Dana Otonomi Khusus&prv=Provinsi Papua

    Dana Otonomi Khusus Pertahun Provinsi Papua, 2002-2008 (Rp. Juta)

    Tahun Provinsi Kabupaten/Kota Total
    2002 0 390,906 390,906
    2003 0 432,985 432,985
    2004 0 693,149 693,149
    2005 0 592,150 592,150
    2006 0 1,152,007 1,152,007
    2007 0 1,209,070 1,209,070
    2008 0 1,343,181 1,343,181

    http://www.tkp2e-dak.org/dataotsusprov.asp?kdp=9100&hit=&dkd=Dana Otonomi Khusus&prv=Provinsi Papua Barat

    Dana Otonomi Khusus Pertahun Provinsi Papua Barat, 2002-2008 (Rp. Juta)

    Tahun Provinsi Kabupaten/Kota Total
    2002 0 161,864 161,864
    2003 0 172,528 172,528
    2004 0 266,657 266,657
    2005 0 262,850 262,850
    2006 0 495,924 495,924
    2007 0 521,538 521,538
    2008 0 554,819 554,819

    http://www.starberita.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=793:uu-no-21-rugikan-pertamina&catid=108:keuangan&Itemid=641

    Duh, UU No 21/2001 Rugikan Pertamina

    Jumat, 19 Pebruari 2010 19:55

    Starberita-Medan, Pertamina merasa dirugikan dengan UU No 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas (Migas) yang sungguh sangat merugikan Pertamina, sebab UU ini telah mengubah secara drastis tata kelola Migas indonesia. Hal inilah yang dikemukakan dalam talkshow forum sahabat dan Student center Development North Sumatera  (S.C.D.N.S) bersama Pertamina Wilayah Sumut di Restourant HTT di jalan Mongonsidi sore ini. (19/2).

    Hadir Disana dalam acara talkshow ini Humas Pertamina wilayah Sumut Rustam Aji, Brilian Muchtar Ketua Komisi E DPRD Sumut sebagai Narasumber. Acara yang dilangsungkan kurang lebih dua jam ini, lebih banyak membahas betap meruginya pertamina dengan UU 21 Tahun 2002 tentang tata kelola Migas.

    Brilian mengatakan, UU tersebut lahir begitu dipaksakan oleh ‘IMF’ terhadap sektor-sektor strategis di Indonesia, antara lain  migas, listrik dan air melalui skema Lol (letter of Intent). “Berbeda dengan undangan sebelumnya yang lebih nasionalis, sedangkan uu ini sangat di dominasi oleh intervensi asing,” terang ketua komisi E DPRD Sumut ini.

    Dengan kata lain dirinya menjelaskan, inilah yang menyebabkan pihak asing seakan menjadi gurita di negara ini, setelah UU no 21 tahun 2002 disahkan pada 23 november 2001, sehingga koperasi asing semakin leluasa menguasai  bisnis migas.  “Jika sebelumnya koprasi asing menguasai sektro hulu, kini mereka sudah merambah sektor hilir.

    Sementara itu Humas Pertamina Wilayah Sumut Rustam Aji mengatakan sebagian besar kontrol migas indonesia, hari ini dikuasai segelintir koprasi asing, yang menguasai 85.4 persen dari 137 konsesensi pengelolaan lapangan  migas di Indonesia menduduki 10 besar produsen di Minyak di Indonesia.

    “penguasaan minyak oleh koprasi asing ini telah melemahkan kontrol negara terhadap alokaksi produksi, biaya produksi, cost recovery dan tingkat harga minyak. Akibatnya pemenuhan kebutuhan domestik yang sekiranya dapat menstabilkan harga domestik tidak menjadi yang utama,” terangnya

    Rustam menambahkan, Indonesia memang mengimpor  BBM sebesar 302,599 barel/hari pada tahun 2007. Tapi sambungnya, pada saat yang sama minyak kita pun dijual keluarnegri sebanyak 348.314 barel/hari.(AT)


    http://eprints.undip.ac.id/11483/

    Analisis Keuangan Daerah Provinsi Papua dengan Berlakunya Otonomi Khusus

    Fibiolla Irianni, 25 May 2010 11:33

    Fibiolla Irianni Ohei, Analisis Keuangan Daerah Provinsi Papua dengan Berlakunya Otonomi Khusus (UU No.21/2001). Masters Thesis, Program Pascasarjana Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 2003, http://eprints.undip.ac.id/11483/1/2003MIESP2104.pdf

    Abstract

    Problems to be discussed in this study is the determination of elasticity rate of financial necessity in Papua Province as the means of local finance rate of the Papua Province concerning the establishment of exclusive autonomy (IJU No. 21/2001). It is believed that the local original earning of Papua is necessary to take account for.

    In addition, it is also significant to determine the clearness of financial balance since the UU No. 21/2001 has been effective. Both factors are used to financing the exclusive autonomy implementation. ‘the study is oriented to analyze the Local Financial State of the Papua Province according to the applied UU No. 21/2001.

    In another word, the analysis focuses on the rate of elasticity of financial necessity, the local original earnings, and financial balance. Theory to be applied in this study is as the following: according to Intergovernmental Transfer, it is generally believed that one might find as much as six fundamental reasons needed.

    The reasons must agree with fiscal imbalance, redistribution role of public sector, preservation of internal common market, inter- jurisdictional spillover, net-fiscal benefit across states and stabilization objectives. Data to be used in the study is secondary data, which were collected from Biro Anggaran (Budgetary Bureau), and the BPS of BAPPEDA of the Papua Province, and the Department of Finance of the Republic Indonesia.

    Analysis devices in the observation are multiple regression analysis, and mathematics measurement. The main finding is a positive and significant effect of such factors as population, number of schools, road length, and number of people living in poverty on the finance necessity in Papua.

    The dynamics of the local original earning tend to the elevating state However, the real value shows the minimum benefit as the local government remains dependent on the Central government.

    The recommendation of the writer is that Papua is expected to march on the improvement of their local earning through such efforts as preservation, intensification, and tax sharing. The central government is also suggested to emphasize a decentralization method in order to giving more space to breathe to the local government.

    Abstrak

    Permasalahan yang diangkat dalam penelitian ini : Perlu kejelasan besamya tingkat elastisitas kebutuhan dana Propinsi Papua, sebagai analisis keuangan daerah Propinsi Papua dengan berlakunya otonomi khusus (UU No.21/2001);

    Perlu adanya kejelasan pendapatan ash daerah propinsi Papua, dan Perlu adanya kejelasan besamya dana perimbangan dengan diterapkannya UU No 21/2001 bagi Propinsi Papua, yang digunakan untuk pembiayaan penyelenggaraan otonomi Khusus.

    Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis Keuangan Daerah Propinsi Papua dengan berlakunya Otonomi Khusus (UU No. 21/2001), yaitu dengan menganalisis tingkat elastisitas kebutuhan dana Propinsi Papua, menganalisis Pendapatan Ash Daerah Propinsi Papua dan menganalisis Dana Perimbangan Propinsi Papua dengan diterapkannya UU No. 21/2001.

    Teori yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini : berdasarkan Intergovermental Transfer pada umum_nya ada enam alasan diperlukan dengan adanya grant : Fiscal imbalance, redistribution role cf public sector, preservation of internal common market, interjurisdictional spillovers, differential net fiscal benefit across states dan stabilization objectives.

    Data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini data sekunder yang sumbernya dan Biro Anggaran, BPS, BAPPEDA Propinsi Papua dan Departemen Keuangan RI. Alat analisis yang digunakan dalam mencapai tujuan dalam penelitian ini menggunakan analisis regresi berganda, dan perhitungan matematika.

    Ternuan utama penelitian ini adalah jumlah penduduk, banyak sekolab, panjang jalan, dan jumlah penduduk miskin mempunyai pengaruh positif dan signifikan terhadap kebutuhan dana Propinsi Papua, sedangkan perkembangan PAD Propinsi Papua bila ditinjau dari nilai nominalnya dari tahun ke tahun tens menunjukkan kenaikan, tetapi bila ditinjau dari nilai riilnya menunjukkan gambaran yang kurang menguntungkan;

    dengan kata lain PAD Propinsi Papua relatif rendah sehingga mengakibatkan tingkat ketergantungan terhadap Pusat masih tinggi. Saran penulis untuk penelitian ini: pemerintah daerah Papua untuk terus berupaya dalam menggali dan meningkatkan PAD dengan Ekstensifikasi, intensifikasi dan tax sharing.

    Dan untuk pemerintah pusat disarankan lebih meletakkan dan menekankan peyelenggaraan atas asas desentralisasi sehingga tampak adanya peyelenggaraan desentralisasi dan otonomi khusus di Papua.


    http://tanahpapua.com/index.php/Berita-Terkini/mendagri-jangan-salah-artikan-evaluasi-otsus-papua.html

    Mendagri: Jangan Salah Artikan Evaluasi Otsus Papua

    Jakarta,tanahpapua.com – Menteri Dalam Negeri Gamawan Fauzi meminta agar jangan menyalahartikan evaluasi pelaksanaan otonomi khusus di Provinsi Papua karena evaluasi itu dilakukan sesuai dengan amanat Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2001. “Jadi jangan disalahartikan. Ini pekerjaan rutin sesuai amanat undang-undang,” kata Gamawan Fauzi, di Jakarta, Jumat.

    Mendagri menjelaskan, pasal 78 UU tentang Otonomi Khusus Bagi Papua menyebutkan pelaksanaan UU 21/2001 ini dievaluasi setiap tahun dan untuk pertama kalinya dilakukan pada akhir tahun ketiga sesudah UU berlaku. “Di tahun ketiga UU terbit, harus dilakukan evaluasi. Audit itu dalam rangka evaluasi,” ujarnya.

    Sebelumnya, Gamawan Fauzi setelah Sidang Kabinet Paripurna di Kantor Kepresidenan, Kamis (29/7) malam menjelaskan audit otonomi khusus Papua itu adalah tindak lanjut perintah Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono terkait evaluasi pelaksanaan pemerintahan daerah.

    “Alat evaluasi inilah yang beliau minta diaudit dulu. Jadi sebelum melakukan evaluasi kita audit dulu,” katanya. Gamawan menegaskan, pelaksanaan otonomi khusus Papua belum pernah diaudit sejak pemberlakuan undang-undang tentang hal itu disahkan. Rencananya, pemerintah akan memulai audit dalam pekan ini. Audit diawali dengan pembentukan tim auditor.

    Tim tersebut akan memantau segala sektor pelaksanaan otonomi khusus di Papua, antara lain realisasi keuangan, penyelenggaraan pemerintahan, dan pelaksanaan kebijakan pemerintahan. Gamawan menjelaskan, kesimpulan audit itu akan dijadikan bahan bagi pemerintah untuk mengidentifikasi kelemahan pelaksanaan otonomi khusus Papua.

    “Nanti bisa dilihat kelemahannya, apakah kelemahannya di pemerintah pusat atau di pemerintah daerah,” katanya. Setelah mengetahui kelemahan dari hasil audit, pemerintah akan menentukan langkah evaluasi dan perbaikan pelaksanaan otonomi khusus Papua.(berbagai sumber).


    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/modules-menu/jayapura/9467-evaluasi-otsus-harus-libatkan-rakyat-papua

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=cache:uOVezi2ohLYJ:http://www.tabloidjubi.com/index.php/modules-menu/jayapura/9467-evaluasi-otsus-harus-libatkan-rakyat-papua+papua+otsus+evaluasi&oe=utf-8&hl=en&ct=clnk

    Evaluasi Otsus Harus Libatkan Rakyat Papua

    Written by Victor Mambor

    JUBI — Pelaksanaan Otonomi Khusus (Otsus) Papua hingga kini belum dievaluasi, sehingga ketika dilakukan harus melibatkan rakyat asli Papua, karena rakyat yang merasakan dampak kebijakan tersebut. “Biarkan rakyat yang menilai karena mereka yang mengetahui secara langsung apakah Otsus di Papua berhasil atau tidak. Karena itu, jangan ada intervensi dari instansi tertentu,” ujar Thomas CH Syufi, di Jayapura, Jumat (29/10).

    Menurutnya,  evaluasi yang dilakukan selama ini tidak terbuka, sehingga  persoalan-persoalan di Papua belum diselesaikan secara baik. “Karena itu, sebagai bagian dari masyarakat ini akan menilai pelaksanaan Otsus ini mengambang,” ucapnya. Senada dengan itu,  Hermanus Syufi, Kepala Bidang Hukum dan HAM, BEM FH Uncen, menambahkan bahwa keterlibatan rakyat sangat penting dalam evaluasi Otsus yang sudah berjalan hampir 10 tahun ini.

    “Sebab rakyat mengerti benar dan merasakan dampak dari sebuah kebiajakan Otsus, apakah itu berhasil atau tidak,” tegasnya. Dirinya menuturkan dalam evaluasi nantinya DPR – Papua hanya sebagai  fasilitator saja, namun keterlibatan penuh adalah rakyat dan pemerintah bersama-sama menilainya.

    “Dalam pasal 78, UU Nomor 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otsus di Provinsi Papua disebutkan  bahwa Otsus di evaluasi setiap tahun, sebab itu hal ini harus terlaksana secepatnya,” pintanya. Otsus sejak awal sebagai solusi, katanya, jadi kalu memang untuk rakyat, mestinya direalisasikan dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat.

    “Namun hingga kini masih saja rakyat Papua belum sejahtera, walau Otsus sudah berjalan sejak di undangkan pada tahun 2001 lalu,” tandasnya. (Timo Marten)

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/arsip-edisi-cetak/papua-kini/9450-public-hearing-papua-di-konggres-amerika-2010

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/arsip-edisi-cetak/akar-sagu/9379-sejarah-papua-ala-drooglever

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/arsip-edisi-cetak/akar-sagu/9274-pembangunan-singkirkan-orang-asli-papua

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/arsip-edisi-cetak/politik-hukum-a-ham/9902-data-intelijen-kopassus-bocor-

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/arsip-edisi-cetak/politik-hukum-a-ham/9272-dana-otsus-aman-jika-dikelola-terpisah-

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/arsip-edisi-cetak/advertorial/9454-hutan-papua-antara-impian-dan-kenyataan

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/editorial/kolomredaksi/17580-pemerintah-indonesia-penjarakan-demokrasi-di-tanah-papua


    http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/10/27/18161627/Evaluasi.Otsus.Papua.

    Evaluasi Otsus Papua!

    Ary Wibowo | Aloysius Gonsaga Angi Ebo | Kamis, 27 Oktober 2011 | 18:16 WIB

    KOMPAS/P. RADITYA MAHENDRA YASA
    Puluhan aktivis Papua di Semarang, Rabu (26/10/2011), berunjuk rasa menuntut kedamaian di Bumi Cenderawasih.

    JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com — Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat Imparsial mendesak agar pemerintah segera mengevaluasi Otonomi Khusus Papua. Direktur Eksekutif Imparsial Poengky Indarty menilai, berbagai gejolak yang terjadi Papua terjadi karena pemerintah telah gagal menjalankan otonomi khusus tersebut untuk kemakmuran rakyat Papua.

    “Pemerintah tidak seharusnya menutup mata terhadap kegagalan itu. Pemerintah seharusnya melakukan evaluasi otonomi khusus (otsus) dan mengajak semua komponen masyarakat untuk duduk bersama merencanakan pembangunan yang akan dilaksanakan di Papua,” ujar Poengky saat melakukan konferensi pers di Kantor Imparsial, Jakarta, Kamis (27/10/2011).

    Poengky menuturkan, selama ini evaluasi otsus dilakukan pemerintah sendiri, hanya dengan memanggil menteri dan gubernur terkait pelaksanaan otsus tersebut, tanpa melibatkan rakyat. Ia menilai, jika hanya dengan cara tersebut, maka bisa saja keputusan-keputusannya dapat berpihak dan ditunggangi oleh kepentingan lain.

    “Jadi, seharusnya pemerintah juga melibatkan DPR Papua dan Majelis Rakyat Papua untuk mengevaluasi otsus itu. Pemerintah harus segera duduk bersama rakyat untuk merencanakan pembangunan yang terbaik bagi rakyat Papua,” tuturnya. Lebih lanjut, dikatakan Poengky, untuk menghentikan beberapa kekerasan di Papua, pemerintah harus segera membuka dialog dengan rakyat Papua.

    Menurutnya, jika ingin menjadikan Papua sebagai daerah tujuan investasi, maka kebijakan-kebijakan pemerintah juga seharusnya berpihak kepada rakyat dan memperhatikan kelestarian sumber daya alam. “Masalah ini harus dilihat secara jernih dan komprehensif oleh pemerintah, kalau mereka ingin menciptakan Papua sebagai tanah yang damai,” kata Poengky.

    http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/10/20/22131618/Pemerintah.Harus.Serius.Jalankan.UU.Otsus.Papua

    http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/06/06/21425427/Dewan.Adat.Papua.Tolak.MRP.Ilegal

    http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/04/21/17542176/Rp.319.Miliar.Dikorupsi.dari.Otsus.Papua

    http://regional.kompas.com/read/2011/04/04/03145812/Dana.Otonomi.Khusus.Ibarat.Hadiah.dari.Sinterklas.


    http://www.bisnis.com/articles/kemdagri-segera-tuntaskan-evaluasi-otsus-papua

    Kemdagri segera tuntaskan evaluasi otsus Papua

    Oleh Ashari Purwo, Rabu, 30 November 2011 | 21:43 WIB

    DENPASAR: Kementerian Dalam Negeri serta Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional menuntaskan evaluasi Otonomi Khusus untuk Provinsi Papua yang menghambat pertumbuhan ekonomi dengan target penyelesaian pada akhir 2011.

    Direktur Jenderal Otonomi Daerah Kementerian Dalam Negeri, Djohermasyah Djohan mengatakan evaluasi ini difokuskan pada penataan birokrasi dan kepemimpinan di daerah Papua. “Penguatan birokrasi dan lembaga termasuk dewan perwakilan rakyat dan gubernur akan dievaluasi,” katanya di Denpasar, provinsi Bali, hari ini. Pada penuntasan evaluasi ini, Djohan menjelaskan, ditentuan arah kelanjutan otonomi khusus untuk bumi cenderawasih ini.

    Diharapkan, pasca adanya evaluasi pemerintah daerah provinsi hingga di tingkat kabupaten mampu bekerjasama membangun perekonomian papua secara masif. Direktur Jenderal Otonomi Daerah Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional, Budhi Santoso menjelaskan banyaknya konflik di Papua dinilai akibat kesejahteraan warga yang terlalu lama terabaikan.

    “Banya pembangunan infrastruktur terhambat,” katanya seusai seminar diseminasi produk perencanaan Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional di Denpasar. Rangkaian konflik dan lambannya respona pemerintah pusat membuat jurang yang lebar antara pemerintah pusat dan Papua. Pada konteks ini, koordinasi belum terjalin dengan baik. “Makanya, perkembangan infrastruktur di Papua sangat lamban.”

    Berdasarkan catatan Kementerian Dalam Negeri, per 2011 Papua menerima dana dari anggaran belanja negara sebanyak Rp30 triliun untuk pengembangan wilayah. Padahal, daerah dengan status otonomi khusus lainnya hanya mendapat sekitar 25% dari anggaran yang diterimakan pada Papua.

    Menanggapi peringatan hari ulang tahun Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) yang diperingati setiap 1 Desember, Asisten I Deputi V Kementerian Politik Hukum dan Keamanan, Didik Tatok Prijandono mengimbau pada OPM untuk dikoordinasikan secara baik sesuai koridor hukum yang berlaku. “Jangan sampai hanya karena peringatan itu, masalah keamanan di papua terganggu.”

    Papua menerima Otonomi Khusus dari Negara Republik Indonesia melalui Undang-undang Nomor 21/2001 (Lembaran Negara Tahun 2001 No 135 dan Tambahan Lembaran Negara No  4151) yang telah diubah dengan Perpu No.1/2008 (LN Tahun 2008 No 57 dan TLN No 4843). UU 21/2001 yang terdiri dari 79 pasal ini mengatur kewenangan-kewenangan Provinsi Papua dalam menjalankan Otonomi Khusus. (21/Bsi)

    http://www.bisnis.com/articles/opm-dari-melbourne

    http://www.bisnis.com/articles/dana-transfer-daerah-belum-pacu-pertumbuhan-ekonomi

    http://www.bisnis.com/articles/boediono-kembali-pimpin-rapat-pembangunan-papua

    http://www.bisnis.com/articles/papua-tetap-aman-untuk-investasi-asing

    http://www.bisnis.com/articles/pemerintah-belum-mampu-sejahterakan-guru


    http://www.bisnis.com/articles/boediono-kembali-pimpin-rapat-pembangunan-pap

    Boediono kembali pimpin rapat pembangunan Papua

    Oleh Asep Dadan Muhanda, Jum’at, 02 Desember 2011 | 09:12 WIB

    JAKARTA: Wakil Presiden Boediono kembali akan memimpin rapat percepatan pembangunan Papua dan Papua Barat, di Jakarta, siang ini, Jumat, 2 Desember. Informasi dari Biro Media Massa Setwapres menyebutkan, Boediono memimpin rapat mengenai Papua itu pada pukul 14.00 WIB di Istana Wapres. Boediono rapat Papua setelah mengikuti sidang kabinet paripurna di kantor Presiden pagi ini.

    Pemerintah sudah membentuk unit khusus untuk menangani Papua dengan nama Unit Percepatan Pembangunan Papua dan Papua Barat (UP4B) yang dipimpin Bambang Dharmono. Dalam pertemuan sebelumnya, Bambang Dharmono mengatakan UP4B segera berkantor di Jayapura pada akhir tahun ini untuk segera bekerja.

    Unit ini akan mengutamakan pendekatan kepada masyarakat dalam menjalankan program agar sesuai dengan kebutuhan masyarakat Papua. UP4B dibentuk karena otonomi khusus yang diberlakukan di Papua gagal mempercepat pembangunan dan meningkatkan kesejahteraan. Padahal, sejak otonomi khusus Papua, pemerintah pusat sudah mengucurkan dana besar. (ln)


    http://nusantara.tvonenews.tv/berita/view/51582/2011/12/02/pemerintah_susun_hasil_evaluasi_otsus_papua.tvOne

    Pemerintah Susun Hasil Evaluasi Otsus Papua

    tvOne, Jakarta, Jumat, 2 Desember 2011 20:55 WIB

    Menteri Dalam Negeri Gamawan Fauzi mengatakan bahwa hasil evaluasi otonomi khusus (otsus) Papua dan Papua Barat sedang disusun dan akan selesai pada akhir Desember 2011. “Akhir bulan inilah, laporan (hasil evaluasi otsus) sedang dalam proses,” kata Gamawan ketika ditemui di gedung Kementerian Dalam Negeri, Jakarta, Jumat (2/12).

    Ia mengatakan, saat ini tim evaluasi otsus tengah bekerja menyusun dan menilai kelemahan-kelemahan dalam pelaksanaan otsus di Papua dan Papua Barat. Evaluasi terhadap pelaksanaan otsus Papua dan Papua Barat adalah amanat UU 21/2001. Pasal 78 UU tersebut menyatakan, “Pelaksanaan undang-undang ini dievaluasi setiap tahun dan untuk pertama kalinya dilakukan pada akhir tahun ketiga setelah undang-undang ini berlaku”.

    Pelaksanaan otsus di Papua belum pernah diaudit sejak pemberlakuan UU tentang hal itu disahkan. Ditemui secara terpisah, Direktur Jenderal Otonomi Daerah (Otda), Kementerian Dalam Negeri Djohermansyah Djohan menambahkan penyelesaian hasil evaluasi otsus ditargetkan rampung akhir Desember. “Sedang disusun hasil evaluasinya. Taget (penyusunan hasil) evaluasi akhir Desember ini jadi,” katanya.

    Menurut Djohermansyah hasil evaluasi tersebut akan disampaikan Mendagri kepada Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dan Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR). Ia menuturkan secara garis besar hasil evaluasi menunjukkan ada permasalahan dalam tata kelola otsus, pembangunan kapasitas aparatur, regulasi yang belum siap, persoalan perencanaan dana otsus, serta pengawasannya.

    Djohermansyah mencontohkan ketidaksiapan regulasi yang dimaksud adalah belum adanya peraturan-peraturan daerah khusus yang diamanatkan oleh Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2001 tentang tentang Otonomi Khusus Bagi Papua. Menurut Djohermansyah, semestinya ada 16 perdasus yang dihasilkan berdasarkan UU 21/2001, namun pada pelaksanaannya baru delapan perdasus yang telah terbit.

    Sementara perdasus yang belum ada, antara lain soal pengisian seperempat anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua dari orang asli Papua, tata cara pemilihan gubernur dan wagub, keanggotaan dan jumlah anggota Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP), tata cara pelaksanaan kewajiban MRP, dan bagi hasil sumber daya alam antara provinsi dan kabupaten/kota. “Banyak perdasus yang belum selesai, termasuk peraturan daerah provinsi yang menjadi kewajiban DPRP,” katanya. (Ant)


    http://www.bintangpapua.com/headline/17565-tahun-2012-papua-digenlontorkan-dana-otsus-rp-8-triliun-

    Tahun 2012,  Papua Digenlontorkan Dana Otsus Rp  8 Triliun

    Senin, 05 Desember 2011 22:44

    Ketua MRP Timotius Murib: Harus Melibatkan MRP Untuk Mengawasi

    JAYAPURA –  Provinsi Papua akan  digelontorkan dana Otsus sebesar Rp 8 Triliun pada 2012 mendatang. Kenaikan dana Otsus Papua akan terus bertambah setiap tahunnya. Namun demikian kucuran dana Otsus bagi Provinsi Papua dinilai belum membawa perubahan signifikan didalam kehidupan masyarakat asli Papua yang berjumlah satu jutaan lebih. Padahal banyaknya Dana Otsus seharusnya dapat mensejahterakan orang asli Papua yang berjumlah hanya sejuta  lebih tersebut.

    Demikian diungkapkan  Ketua MRP Provinsi Papua, Timotius Murib. “Sudah 11 Tahun Papua mendapatkan kucuran dana Otsus, realisasi fisik lapangan yang terkait dengan pembangunan fisik dan layanan publik dianggap jauh dari harapan karena tidak menyentuh kehidupan masyarakat asli Papua hingga pelosok Papua,” ujar Murib.

    Realita penyimpangan dan penyalagunaan Dana Otsus yang tidak turut melibatkan MRP dalam pengawasan aliran dana tersebut, menyebabkan dana tersebut tidak membawa perubahan fisik pembangunan di Papua. Yang ada justru masyarakat asli Papua berteriak, berdemo dan menuntut Keadilan dari Pemerintah dan itulah realitas yang terjadi sekarang ini di Tanah Papua.

    Menurut Timotius Murib,  penyimpangan dalam penggunaan dana Otsus Papua  yang tak sesuai amanat Undang undang Otsus,  hendaknya mendapatkan perhatian serius Eksekutif dan Legislatif di Papua. ”Terutama itikat baiknya untuk membangun Tanah Papua  bersama MRP perlu  yang merupakan roh dari Undang undang Otsus Papua,” ujar Tomotius Senin (5/12).

    Untuk itu dirinya sebagai Ketua MRP meminta semua komponen masyarakat mulai dari eksekutif, legislatif dan unsur Akademisi yang pernah melakukan evaluasi Otsus, terutama eksekutif –legislatif Papua untuk  bersama sama melakukan revisi terhadap Undang undang Otsus Papua.

    Bila melihat Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah (APBD) Provinsi Papua setiap tahunnya mencapai 35–40 Triliun, jumlah itu dibagi tiga, diberikan  kepada Gubernur, DPR dan Sekda.

    Ia melihat MRP sebagai lembaga representasi dan lembaga negara yang hadir karena riak- riak orang Papua untuk merdeka karena ketidakadilan, seharusnya MRP juga dilibatkan dalam seluruh mekanisme pengawasan dan penggunaan anggaran, sebaliknya MRP tak pernah dilibatkan hingga MRP tidak tahu menahu dana yang dikeluarkan kemana dan penggunaannya untuk apa saja.

    sebab faktanya selama 11 tahun pelaksanaan Otsus, penggunaan dana otsus belum dapat merubah wajah Ibu Kota Jayapura dan Daerah di Kabupaten Kota lainnya di Papua. Secara fisik serta meningkatkan taraf hidup masayarakat asli Papua. Untuk kedepan ditahun 2012  mendatang, MRP kata Timotius harus dilibatkan dalam mengawas penggunaan dana Otsus Papua senilai Rp 8 Triliun.

    Eksekutif dan legislatif perlu transparan kepada MRP terkait penggunaan dana otsus, target dan sasarannya, karena   selama lima tahun MRP ada, pengawalan dan evaluasi terhadap dana Otsus Papua tidak pernah dilakukan, maka tahun 2012 MRP harus terlibat penuh dalam pengawasan, dimana

    Eksekutif dan legislatif harus memberikan laporan penggunaan dana Otsus 8 Trilyun  tersebut kepada MRP dan MRP berkewajiban mengawal dari awal penggunaan dana 8 Trilyun itu, sebab saatnya satu jutaan rakyat Papua asli meningmati dana itu terutama dalam pemberdayaan ekonomi, pendidikan, Kesehatan dan Infrastruktur dari tiga bidang kehidupan ini. (ven/don/l03)


    http://www.waspada.co.id/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=226141:kemdagri-rilis-evaluasi-otsus-papua&catid=95:nusantara&Itemid=146

    Kemdagri rilis evaluasi Otsus Papua

    WASPADA ONLINE, Tuesday, 06 December 2011 19:45

    JAKARTA – Kementerian Dalam Negeri akan menyampaikan hasil evaluasi mengenai pelaksanaan otonomi khusus Papua pada akhir 2011. Mendagri Gamawan Fauzi di Kompleks Istana Presiden Jakarta, Selasa sore mengatakan pada akhir Desember 2011 laporan evaluasi akan selesai.

    “Tahun ini kita akan perlihatkan evaluasi akhir Desember ini, kita kan sedang melakukan evaluasi tentang pelaksanaan Otsus Papua, akhir Desember keluar dari Kemdagri,” kata Gamawan. Dalam proses penyusunan evaluasi itu, kata Gamawan, pihaknya juga melakukan dialog dengan tokoh-tokoh di Papua sehingga secara komprehensif dapat mengetahui sejauh mana proses otsus telah berjalan.

    “Saya malam ini ke Papua dalam dialog pembangunan, saya bersama Menko Kesra, kita ketemu tokoh Papua, kemarin tanggal 1 Desember di Depdagri, sekarang saya datang lagi, lebih intensif lah,” katanya. Gamawan mengatakan dialog pembangunan akan dilakukan bersama-sama dengan Menko Kesra, Kapolri dan Kepala UP4B.

    (dat15/antara)

    http://www.waspada.co.id/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=225906:papua-mulai-tak-percayai-pemerintah&catid=95:nusantara&Itemid=146

    http://www.waspada.co.id/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=225012:tentara-as-di-papua-harus-diusir&catid=59:kriminal-a-hukum&Itemid=91


    http://kbkorandonews.com/berita-utama/382-otsus-papua-aceh-hadapi-hambatan-klasik-dan-benturan-kepentingan.html

    Otsus Papua-Aceh Hadapi Hambatan Klasik dan Benturan Kepentingan

    Jumat, 16 Desember 2011 09:45

    JAKARTA – Letjen Dr. Hotmangaradja Panjaitan, MH Sekretaris Menkopolhukam RI dalam Acara WorkShop Pemantapan Koordinasi Pelaksanaan Otonomi Khusus Papua-Aceh Senin(12/12) akui, banyak kementerian yang mengawal pelaksanaan pembangunan wilayah otonomi khusus alami hambatan klasik yaitu koordinasi, hal itu seringkali lahirkan benturan kepentingan karena objek sama.

    Dia katakan pelaksanaan otonomi khusus di Aceh dan Papua berhasil dikompromikan lewat pembagian urusan pemerintah namun dalam prakteknya masih menghadapi kendala administrasi dan regulasi seperti ketentuan pengelolaan sumber daya alam hingga kini masih sulit diterapkan.

    Brigjen Sumardi Asisten Deputi Poldagri Menkopolhukam RI jelaskan hasil workshop dapat hasilkan kebijakan koordinatif, sinerji, efisien sehingga percepatan otsus dapatkan sejahterhkan rakyat. Dalam workshop yang diikuti 75 orang pejabat intansi terkait, hadir undangan khusus Petrus Reflesie Sekretaris Komite Solidaritas Papua (KSP), Robinson Togap Siagian Ketua Yayasan Suara Nasrani Indonesia (YSNI). *RTS

    Berikut makalah lengkap Letjen Dr. Hotmangaradja Panjaitan, MH dalam workshop tersebut:

    KEYNOTE SPEECH SESMENKO POLHUKAM DALAM ACARA WORKSHOP PEMANTAPAN KOORDINASI PELAKSANAN OTONOMI KHUSUS

    Assalamu’alaikum Wr. Wb.
    Selamat Pagi dan Salam Sejahtera bagi kita semua.

    Yang Saya Hormati :
    Para Narasumber dan Moderator;
    Para Deputi Kemenko Polhukam;
    Para Staf Ahli dan Staf Khusus Menko Polhukam;
    Para Pejabat Kementerian/Lembaga;

    Pertama-tama marilah kita panjatkan puji dan syukur kehadirat Tuhan Yang Maha Esa, atas rahmat dan karunia-Nya, kita semua masih diberi kesempatan dan kekuatan untuk melanjutkan tugas dan pengabdian kepada bangsa dan negara tercinta.

    Pada kesempatan yang baik ini pula, saya  menyampaikan terima kasih dan penghargaan atas kehadiran Bapak, Ibu serta saudara-saudara sekalian pada acara workshop dalam rangka workshop pemantapan koordinasi pelaksanaan otonomi khusus

    Hadirin yang saya hormati,

    Membahas masalah koordinasi  pembangunan dibutuhkan adanya sinergisitas antara intitusi-institusi lokal dan pusat  yang memiliki kemampuan (capacity) untuk menciptakan keseimbangan hubungan antar Pusat dan Daerah.

    Koordinasi pembangunan di Daerah Aceh dan Papua yang merupakan daerah dengan status otonomi khusus dapat berjalan dengan efektif, efisien dan dapat diketahui catatan kemajuannya apabila dilakukan pengawasan dan evaluasi yang konsisten.

    Banyak Kementerian yang dibentuk dan ditugaskan untuk mengawal pelaksanaan pembangunan  wilayah otonomi khusus  tetapi mereka masih mengalami hambatan klasik, yakni koordinasi. Ketiadaan koordinasi antar lembaga pelaksana dan pengawas pembangunan  seringkali melahirkan perbenturan kepentingan karena obyek yang diawasi dan dievaluasinya sama.

    Pelaksanaan otonomi khusus di Aceh dan Papua pada satu dasawarsa lalu telah berhasil dikompromikan lewat pembagian urusan pemerintahan (otonomi dan otonomi khusus), namun di dalam prakteknya,di daerah tersebut masih mengalami kendala administrasi dan regulasi.

    Seperti ketentuan tentang pengelolaan sumberdaya alam, hingga saat ini masih sulit menerapkan ketentuan-ketentuan di dalam UU OTSUS-nya karena adanya hambatan regulasi Pusat. Misalnya di bidang kehutanan, pertanahan, perikanan, pertambangan umum, migas maupun urusan perbatasan negara.

    Membahas masalah otonomi khusus tidak lepas dari dasar kebijakan yaitu UU 32/2004 yang menyebutkan otonomi daerah adalah hak, wewenang, dan kewajiban daerah otonom untuk mengatur dan mengurus sendiri urusan pemerintahan, kepentingan dan kepentingan aspirasi masyarakat dalam sistem Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia.

    Dalam konteks paradigma politik administrasi negara yang desentralistik, seperti Indonesia  akan timbul sebuah petanyaan besar mengapa ada otonomi khusus di Aceh dan Papua? Mengacu pada  UU 18/2001 tentang Otsus bagi Provinsi NAD, menyebutkan bahwa Provinsi Daerah Istimewa Aceh diberi otonomi khusus dalam kerangka Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia.

    Sedangkan UU 11/2006 tentang Pemerintahan Aceh menyebutkan bahwa Aceh adalah daerah provinsi yang merupakan kesatuan masyarakat hukum yang bersifat istimewa dan diberi kewenangan khusus untuk mengatur dan mengurus sendiri urusan pemerintahan dan kepentingan masyarakat dalam sistem dan prinsip Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia

    Demikian pula dengan UU 21/ 2001 tentang Otsus  Papua, disebutkan Otonomi Khusus Papua adalah kewenangan khusus yang diakui dan diberikan kepada Provinsi Papua untuk mengatur dan mengurus kepentingan masyarakat setempat menurut prakarsa sendiri berdasarkan aspirasi dan hak-hak dasar masyarakat dalam kerangka Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia.

    Dengan menyandingkan dan membanding kedua UU Otsus bagi Aceh maupun Papua dapat dilihat bahwa tidak terdapat perbedaan yang mendasar berkenaan dengan konsep “otonomi” dan “otonomi khusus” . Keduanya bermakna sama, yaitu kewenangan –yang melekat pula hak dan kewajiban– untuk mengatur dan mengurus sendiri urusan pemerintahan dan kepentingan masyarakat setempat.

    Hal ini juga tidak berbeda dengan muatan pada pasal 2 ayat (3) dalam UU No. 32 Tahun 2004 yang menyebutkan bahwa Pemerintah daerah menjalankan otonomi seluas-luasnya, kecuali urusan yang menjadi urusan pemerintah  (pusat). Hal yang patut dipahami, bahwa pelaksanaan Otsus adalah suatu bentuk rekonsiliasi secara bermartabat menuju pembangunan sosial, ekonomi, dan politik di Aceh dan Papua secara berkelanjutan.

    Meskipun secara mendasar tidak berbeda, namun jika dicermati, tetap ada perbedaan yaitu dimensi peristilahan, kelembagaan dan keuangan daerah. Pemberian otonomi  khusus tersebut sudah biasa dilakukan dalam praktek penyelenggaraan pemerintahan dalam bentuk negara kesatuan yang didesentralisasikan (asymmetrical intergovernmental arrangements )

    Hadirin yang saya hormati,

    Hingga saat  ini kita masih  sadari  adanya beberapa kekurangan dalam pelaksanaan otonomi khusus baik di Papua maupun Aceh  seperti masalah kebijakan, politik, hukum, keamanan serta koordinasi pembangunan.   Namun meskipun masih terdapat kekurangan, kita harus tetap bersandar pada konsep pembangunan yang komprehensif, demokratis, dan bermartabat.

    Karenanya setiap masalah yang muncul harus terselesaikan melalui kompromi dengan didasarkan pada nilai-nilai dasar yang mencakup perlindungan dan penghargaan terhadap rakyat Papua dan Aceh. Kita tetap bertekad untuk  mengakhiri konflik yang terjadi selama ini dengan tetap meningkatkan  koordinasi, sinkronisasi dan media interaksi.

    Sehingga nantinya akan tersusun langkah-Iangkah yang strategis, komprehensif dan terpadu menuju masyarakat yang damai, adil, makmur, sejahtera, dan bermartabat. Di masa lalu, eskalasi konflik telah mengaburkan nilai nilai harmonisasi perdamaian yang telah kita sepakati bersama.

    Hal ini disebabkan karena faktor kompleksitas kepentingan sosial politik, faktor sosial ekonomi: dominasi elite atas masyarakat lokal , faktor sejarah dan budaya ketidakadilan serta provokasi yang mengeksploitasi perbedaan-perbedaan yang belum  di pahami dalam konteks sejarah dan budaya masyarakat Papua dan Aceh.

    Persoalan konflik yang terjadi sangatlah kompleks karena tidak hanya menyangkut persoalan politik semata, tetapi juga persoalan ekonomi, sosial, dan budaya. Ketiadaan forum-forum dialog atau belum optimal dan efektifnya pelaksanaan mekanisme penyelesaian konflik semakin memperluas konflik dan sulitnya penyelesaiannya secara tuntas.

    Komunikasi politik antar elite dan masyarakat belum dapat berkembang dengan efektif. Hal lain yang secara signifikan mendorong terjadinya konflik adalah rentannya pemahaman dan pelaksanaan nilai kebangsaan terutama dalam konteks menjaga harmonisasi di dalam masyarakat.

    Terkait dengan penanaman nilai kebangsaan serta nilai persatuan dan kesatuan, langkah nyata ke depan yang perlu ditindaklanjuti adalah penyesuaian pendekatan dan mekanisme sosialisasi wawasan kebangsaan agar tujuan utamanya dapat tercapai lebih optimal. Pendekatan yang mengedepankan kearifan lokal akan menjadi pertimbangan utama dalam melaksanakan sosialisasi wawasan kebangsaan.

    Dengan demikian, penyelesaian dari akar permasalahan dan penerapan strategi yang tepat dalam penyelesaian konflik menjadi tantangan yang perlu dilakukan oleh pemerintah dan masyarakat secara sistematis mengingat penyelesaiannya akan memakan waktu yang tidak pendek.

    Penyelesaian konflik memang memerlukan perubahan paradigma dan pemahaman yang utuh mengenai nilai kebangsaan serta nilai persatuan dan kesatuan. Proses pemaknaan yang kemudian dapat dijabarkan ke dalam perilaku tidaklah semudah membalikkan telapak tangan. Pada saat ini, baik di Aceh maupun Papua kita telah akhiri masa konflik dengan penyelesaian melalui  pendekatan secara sosiologis yaitu  bagaimana mencapai keadilan dan kesejahteraan sosial.

    Perubahan perubahan yang terjadi di masyarakat terutama di bidang sosial-ekonomi serta politik merupakan sebuah katalisator dan lingkungan pemampu (enabling environment) untuk menuju rekonsiliasi dan transformasi konflik seluruh elemen masyarakat.

    Dengan kebijakan otonomi khusus tersebut maka Pemerintah bertekad mewujudkan Perdamaian yang merupakan tanggung jawab negara untuk memberikan perlindungan, pemajuan, penegakan, pemenuhan hak asasi manusia.

    Kegiatan utamanya meliputi prakarsa-prakarsa pemulihan pasca konflik dan melaksanakan pembangunan jangka panjang multisektoral yang melengkapi upaya Pemerintah  mencapai pemulihan, dan pembangunan yang berkelanjutan.

    Upaya ini sangat penting dimana berdasarkan UU No. 17 Tahun 2007 tentang RPJPN 2005 – 2025 ditegaskan  bahwa salah satu misi dalam pembangunan nasional Indonesia adalah terwujudnya rasa aman dan damai bagi seluruh rakyat serta terjaganya keutuhan NKRI dan kedaulatan negara.

    Pembangunan Perdamaian di Aceh maupun Papua dilakukan dengan menciptakan suasana aman, tenteram, damai dan sejahtera lahir dan batin serta adanya hak atas rasa aman dan perlindungan dari ancaman ketakutan untuk berbuat atau tidak berbuat sesuatu yang merupakan hak asasi manusia sebagaimana diamanatkan dalam Undang-Undang dasar Negara Republik Indonesia tahun 1945.

    Dengan perkataan lain, pembangunan perdamaian (peace building) di Aceh dan Papua memerlukan strategi perdamaian (strategy for peace) yang sesuai dengan tuntutan-tuntutan masyarakat yang sedang melakukan konsolidasi demokrasi.

    Hadirin yang saya hormati, Dari penjelasan yang saya sebutkan diatas diharapkan akan membuka wawasan dan wacana pemikiran kita tentang pentingnya memahami pembangunan melalui pelaksanaan otonomi khusus sebagai sarana pendukung perdamaian ( peace and development ).

    Demkian pula harapan saya dengan diadakannya workshop ini hendaknya dapat meningkatkan koordinasi, sinkronisasi dan media interaksi, untuk mendapatkan masukan dan pemikiran strategis instansi/lembaga maupun para ilmuwan, pakar, politisi, lembaga legislasi, tokoh-tokoh mayarakat serta komponen masyarakat yang terlibat dalam proses otonomi khusus di Aceh dan Papua.

    Demikian kata sambutan pembukaan dari saya, dalam workshop pemantapan koordinasi pelaksanan otonomi khusus dan dengan mengucapkan puji dan syukur kepada Tuhan YME  secara resmi saya nyatakan dibuka. Semoga dapat bermanfaat bagi kita semua, masyarakat, bangsa dan negara Indonesia.

    Sekian dan Terima Kasih,
    Wassalamu’ alaikumWr. Wb.

    Jakarta, 12 Desember 2011,
    SESMENKO POLHUKAM
    Dr. HOTMANGARADJA PANDJAITAN, MH


    http://tabloidjubi.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=158:inilah-kunci-pelaksanaan-dan-implementasi-otsus-papua-&catid=66:jayapura&Itemid=62

    Inilah Kunci Pelaksanaan dan Implementasi Otsus Papua

    JUBI—Mencermati penyelenggaraan pemerintahan dan pembangunan di Provinsi Papua selama tahun 2011 dan pelaksanaan otonomi khusus (Otsus) Papua yang telah berusia 10 tahun, serta kondisi sosial politik yang terjadi di Papua. Maka Institute for Civil Strengthening (ICS) Papua, sebagai salah satu organisasi masyarakat sipil yang memberi perhatian mewujudkan tata pemerintahan yang baik, bersih, dan mendorong pelaksanaan Otsus secara konsisten, menyampaikan hal-hal sebagai berikut.

    Menurut  Koordinator Program ICS Papua Yusak Elisa Reba, dari sisi aspek implementasi pelaksanaan Otsus di Papua, pemerintah pusat melalui Kementerian Dalam Negeri segera menyampaikan hasil evaluasi pelaksanaan Otsus Papua. “Sebab, hal ini akan menjadi informasi bagi semua pihak dalam melakukan perbaikan terhadap pelaksanaan pemerintahan dan pembangunan di Provinsi Papua,” katanya, Kamis, 22 Desember 2011.

    Yusak juga mengatakan, pemerintah daerah Provinsi Papua, Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua (DPRP), Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP), pemerintah daerah kabupaten/kota, agar secara konsisten melaksanakan materi muatan Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otsus Papua.

    “Juga segera menyusun grand desain terkait implementasi Otsus yang memuat kebijakan-kebijakan bersifat khusus dalam rangka perlindungan, pemberdayaan, dan keberpihakan pada orang asli Papua,” katanya.

    Untuk mewujudkan pembangunan yang tepat sasaran dalam perspektif Otsus bagi orang Papua, kata Yusak, maka pemerintah daerah provinsi dan kabupaten/kota segera menyusun profil orang Papua yang didalamnya memuat jumlah, tingkatan ekonomi, tingkat pendidikan, tingkat kesehatan, daya serap pada lapangan kerja serta aspek penting lainnya.

    “Ini dimaksudkan agar penyelenggaraan pemerintahan dan pelaksanaan pembangunan dalam perspektif Otsus Papua dapat terarah dan memberikan manfaat peningkatan kesejahteraan orang asli Papua,” katanya. Selain itu, kata Yusak, segera dilakukan evaluasi bagi secara substansi, maupun implementasi Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2011 tentang Otonomi Khusus bagi Provinsi Papua.

    Mengingat salah satu sumber penerimaan Provinsi Papua di Otsus, yakni penerimaan khusus yang bersumber dari dua persen plafon Dana Alokasi Umum (DAU) Nasional yang tersisa 10 tahun waktu penerimaan, maka penyelenggara pemerintah di Provinsi Papua dalam penyusunan APBD, agar dana Otsus dipisahkan dalam buku APBD secara terpisah,” katanya.

    Pemerintah di Provinsi Papua juga harus konsisten melaksanakan Peraturan Daerah Khusus (Perdasus) Nomor 1 Tahun 2007 Tentang Pembagian dan Pengelolaan Penerimaan Dalam Rangka Pelaksanaan Otsus dalam penyusunan APBD provinsi, maupun APBD kabupaten/kota tahun anggaran 2012.

    “Pemerintah daerah kabupaten/kota segera menyusun regulasi yang mengatur mengenai penerimaan dan pengelolaan dana Otsus yang diterima pemerintah daerah kabupaten/kota. Juga segera dibentuk suatu badan khusus yang memiliki tugas dan fungsi terkait implementasi Otsus Papua,” katanya.

    MRP harus menjalankan tugas, fungsi, dan wewenang sebagaimana diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otsus bagi Papua dan Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 54 Tahun 2005 tentang MRP dalam rangka perlindungan hak-hak dasar orang asli Papua. “MRP segera menyusun agenda strategis bagi perlindungan terhadap hak-hak dasar orang asli Papua yang diamanatkan di Undang-Undang Otsus Papua,” katanya.

    Selain itu, kata Yusak, DPRP juga segera mengagendakan penyusunan Peraturan Daerah Provinsi (Perdasi) dan Perdasus, sebagaimana diperintahkan Undang-Undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otsus bagi Papua, agar dijadikan sebagai agenda prioritas dalam program legislasi daerah tahun 2012, guna efektivitas implementasi Otsus Papua.

    Sedangkan dari aspek transparansi kebijakan, kata Yusak, pihak ICS Papua meminta agar buku APBD tentang dana Otsus sebagaimana pada point lima, harus memuat kebijakan-kebijakan yang bersifat khusus dan prioritas pada bidang pendidikan, kesehatan, pemberdayaan ekonomi rakyat, dan pembangunan infrastruktur, serta sektor-sektor penting lainnya terkait kesejahteraan orang Papua.

    Terus, kata Yusak, salah satu asas penyelenggaraan pemerintahan yang baik adalah asas transparansi. “Maka APBD sebagai dokumen publik, agar disampaikan secara terbuka kepada masyarakat melalui situs resmi pemerintah daerah maupun mekanisme lain yang dapat diketahui masyarakat luas,” katanya.

    Untuk aspek pengelolaan anggaran daerah, kata Yusak, pihaknya mengharapkan pemerintah daerah provinsi dan kabupaten/kota dalam penyusunan APBD tahun 2012, agar mengalokasikan dana Otsus sebesar 30 persen untuk pendidikan, guna mengatasi berbagai persoalan pendidikan terutama pendidikan dasar dan bukan untuk pendidikan kedinasan.

    “Terkait pengelolaan APBD di Provinsi Papua tahun 2010 dan tahun 2011, khususnya sektor pendidikan berdasarkan hasil analisis kami, masih terus terjadi pelanggaran dan ketidaktaatan dalam pengelokasian anggaran pendidikan sebesar 20 persen dari total APBD sesuai dengan ketentuan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 maupun sebesar 30 persen dari dana Otsus, sesuai Perdasi Nomor 5 Tahun 2006 tentang Pembangunan Pendidikan,” katanya.

    Menurut Yusak, pada APBD 2010, pendidikan dialokasikan sebesar Rp304,06 miliar atau setara dengan 5,93 persen dari total APBD 2010 dengan nilai sebesar Rp5.124,53 miliar, atau setara dengan 29,13 persen dari total dana Otsus tahun 2010 untuk bagian provinsi dengan nilai sebesar Rp1.043,92 miliar.

    Sedangkan di RAPBD Papua 2011, pendidikan dialokasikan Rp297,32 miliar atau setara 5,73 persen dari total RAPBD 2011 dengan nilai Rp5.184,15 miliar, atau setara dengan 25,45 persen dari dana Otsus 2011 untuk bagian provinsi dengan nilai Rp1.077,94 miliar.

    “Hal ini menunjukkan, pengalokasian anggaran pendidikan dalam APBD 2010 dan RAPBD 2011 belum memenuhi atau melanggar semua ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, yakni UUD 1945, UU No. 20/2003, UU No. 21/2001, PP No. 48/2008, dan Perda No. 5/2006.

    Terus, pelanggaran yang sama juga telah terjadi pada APBD tahun-tahun sebelumnya, khususnya APBD 2006 – 2009. Sehingga APBD Provinsi Papua 2012, harus mengalokasikan anggaran pendidikan sesuai ketentuan konstitusi maupun sebesar 30 persen dari dana Otsus yang menjadi bagian provinsi,” katanya. Menurut Yusak, DPRP harus memangkas anggaran pendidikan di pos belanja langsung dalam APBD 2012, sebab apabila masih disedot dan lebih besar untuk kepentingan aparatur.

    Maka kata Yusak, berdasarkan hasil analisis pihaknya terhadap APBD 2010 dan RAPBD 2011, dari total anggaran belanja langsung dalam APBD 2010 sebesar Rp264,59 miliar dibagi untuk belanja pegawai sebesar Rp28,66 miliar (10,83 persen), belanja barang dan jasa sebesar Rp210,71 miliar (79,64 persen), dan belanja modal sebesar Rp25,22 miliar (9,53 persen).

    Sedangkan anggaran belanja langsung pada RAPBD 2011, dibagi untuk belanja pegawai sebesar Rp24,36 miliar (9,20 persen), belanja barang dan jasa sebesar Rp222,84 miliar (84,22 persen), dan belanja modal sebesar Rp17,39 miliar (6,57 persen). “Maka dapat dikatakan, anggaran pendidikan Provinsi Papua tahun 2010 – 2011 lebih banyak digunakan untuk kepentingan aparatur daerah dan kebutuhan administrasi kantor dinas pendidikan.

    Kata lain, pembagian anggaran pendidikan itumengabaikan kepentingan publik, yang terlihat dari kecilnya anggaran yang ditujukan untuk belanja modal, yakni hanya 9,53 persen tahun 2010 dan bahkan turun menjadi 6,57 tahun 2011. Sehingga DPRP perlu cermat dan bijaksana dalam pembahasan APBD 2012, agar alokasi anggaran sektor pendidikan mendapat porsi memadai bagi peningkatan sumber daya manusia orang asli Papua,” katanya.

    Namun menurut Yusak, ICS Papua memberi apresiasi ke pemerintah Provinsi Papua atas peningkatan anggaran pendidikan dasar sebesar Rp 91,38 miliar (APBD 2010) naik menjadi Rp94,88 miliar pada RAPBD 2011. “Kami berharap pada APBD Papua 2012 alokasi anggaran pendidikan akan terus meningkat bukan sebaliknya mengalami penurunan,” katanya.

    Selain biaya operasional sekolah (BOS) yang diberikan pemerintah pusat langsung kepada sekolah, kata Yusak, pemerintah daerah kabupaten/kota segera mengalokasikan anggaran pendidikan yang bersumber dari dana Otsus kepada pihak sekolah agar mengurangi pungutan sekolah terhadap peserta didik karena terbatasnya biaya operasional sekolah. (Jubi/Lev)


    http://www.suarapapua.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=114:dc-uncen-otsus-tidak-gagal-tapi-perlu-evaluasi&catid=9&Itemid=112&lang=en

    DC Uncen: Otsus Tidak Gagal, Tapi Perlu Evaluasi

    JUSTINA HOMERS, Friday, 09 March 2012

    PAPUAN, Jayapura — Walaupun sebagian besar rakyat Papua dengan nyata-nyata telah menolak dan mengembalikan Otonomi Khusus (Otsus) Papua kepada pemerintah Pusat di Jakarta, namun kenyataannya sampai saat ini Otsus masih terus “bergentayangan” di tanah Papua.

    Tiap aksi demo dengan melibatkan ribuan massa untuk menyatakan kegagalan Otsus juga tak pernah direspon positif oleh Jakarta, termasuk oleh pemerintah Provinsi Papua. Berbagai aksi demo dan tuntutan disuarakan rakyat Papua karena Otsus sama sekali tidak menjawab keinginan luhur mereka.

    Namun, evaluasi Pusat Kajian Demokrasi (Democratic Center) Universitas Cenderawasih (Uncen) Jayapura, Papua, membantah kalau Otsus di Papua gagal. Pernyataan ini terkuak melalui peluncuran buku dengan judul “Evaluasi Pelaksanaan Kebijakan Otsus” yang diluncurkan oleh Pusat Kajian DC Uncen Jayapura, Papua.

    Pelaksanaan Undang-Undang Otonomi Khusus (Otsus) di Papua tidak gagal, namun perlu evaluasi kembali terkait pelaksanaan kebijakan Otsus di Papua. Buku evaluasi ini, merupakan kajian dan penilitian tentang pelaksanaan kebijakan Otsus ini, dan hanya mengambil contoh 5 bidang yg dianggap sangat strategis yakni: bidang pendidikan, kesehatan, kepegawaian, infrastruktur dan pemekaran daerah.

    “Buku ini merupakan ringkasan pemikiran dari kalangan pemangku kepentingan (Pejabat) dalam melaksanakan roda pemerintahan dan pembangunan di Papua, semua ini dirangkum dalam forum konfrensi nasional evaluasi dan perbaikan pelaksanaan Otsus bidang kesehatan, pendidikan, infrastruktur, kepegawaian dan pemekaran di Biak bulan November 2011 lalu,” kata Musa’ad kepada sejumlah wartawan di Sekretariat DC Uncen, Abepura, Selasa (6/3) lalu.

    Hasil-hasil dalam forum konfrensi tersebut adalah: harus ada penelitian yang lebih mendalam lagi dan observasi kelapangan terkait 5 bidang tersebut, pada lima kabupaten yang dipilih sebagai contoh kasus pelaksanaan kebijakan. Dari hasil ini selanjutnya dilakukan penelitian kasus, guna melakukan eksplorasi atas masalah-masalah yang terjadi dalam pelaksanaan lima bidang itu.

    Dalam kaitannya untuk mencari solusi untuk selanjutnya digunakan sebagai program dalam mengatasi permasalahan yang terjadi di Tanah Papua. Titik lokasi bidang dan tempat penelitian dilima kabupaten yakni: Bidang Pendidikan di Kabupaten Mimika, bidang kesehatan di Biak, bidang kepegawaian di Merauke, bidang Infrastruktur di Nabire dan bidang Pemekaran Daerah di Yahukimo.

    Diakuinya, selama ini evaluasi Otsus sering dilakukan oleh beberapa pihak, hanya pendekatan yang dilakukan untuk mengevaluasi kebijakan Otsus masih menggunakan pendekatan masing-masing, termasuk menentukan indikator-indikatornya.

    Memang Rakyat Papua mengatakan pelaksanaan Otsus Papua telah gagal, namun pihak DC Uncen mengatakan “Otsus tidak gagal, tapi belum berjalan optimal, sehingga perlu ada perbaikan-perbaikan kerangka dan konstruksi Otsus itu sendiri,” katanya. Dengan kehadiran buku ini kiranya dapat memberikan energi dan motivasi kepada masyarakat (Publik) Papua untuk tidak bersikap dan memandang apatis terhadap pelaksanaan Otsus di Papua.

    Selama UU Otsus masih berlaku atau belum tergantikan, maka UU ini tetap harus menjadi sumber penggerak dalam pelaksanaan pemerintahan dan pembangunan, meski secara fakta dilapangan UU ini belum mampu mengakomodir kepentingan sosial dan politik Rakyat Papua di Papua secara keseluruhan.

    Dirinya berprinsip, meskipun rakyat Papua menolak dan menyatakan Otsus gagal total, namun, DC Uncen tetap akan konsisten berkontribusi dan mengawal pelaksanaan kebijakan Otsus, supaya pelaksanaan Otsus kedepan lebih baik sesuai dengan roh UU Otsus sendiri yakni Percepatan Pembangunan dan Kesejahteraan Rakyat Papua atau sekarang yang lebih dikenal dengan Unit Percepatan Pembangunan Papua Papua Barat (UP4B).

    Yang menjadi masalah kurang maksimalnya pelaksanaan Otsus adalah tidak adanya program lanjutan dan kebijakan yang dilakukan pemerintah daerah baik tingkat Provinsi dan Kabupaten, serta tidak adanya kejelasan target dan sasaran yang ingin dicapai dalam jangka waktu tertentu.


    http://tabloidjubi.com/daily-news/jayapura/11411–stop-bicara-evaluasi-otsus-segera-gelar-dialog.html

    Stop Bicara Evaluasi Otsus, Segera Gelar Dialog

    Yarid AP

    JUBI — Thaha Al-Hamid, Sekretaris Jenderal Presidium Dewan Papua (PDP) mengatakan pelaksanaan Otonomi Khusus (Otsus) di Papua telah gagal dan tidak perlu dievaluasi  lagi. Pemerintah segera menggelar sebuah dialog dengan Rakyat Papua. Bagaimana pun bentuk dialog tersebut, hal yang penting adalah dialog tersebut dapat memperoleh solusi dari akar persoalan di Papua.

    “Otsus sudah gagal dan sudah banyak kali di evaluasi, baik masyarakat, Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (LSM), Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Papua (DPRP), Pemerintah Eksekutif, Provinsi hingga Pemerintah Pusat. Solusi saat ini adalah Pemerintah Indonesia segera berunding dengan Rakyat Papua, bagaimanapun bentuknya” kata Thaha, kepada JUBI, Sabtu (19/3).

    Dia menjelasakan sejak awal, Rakyat Papua, LSM, tokoh agama, Dewan Adat Papua (DAP) dan para pemerhati aspirasi Rakyat Papua bersama Organisasi-organisasi Papua merdeka lainya telah mengatakan kegagalan Otsus dalam menyelesaikan akar konflik di Papua. Tetapi tidak pernah diresponi Pemerintah Indonesia, sehingga hasilnya semakin rumit seperti yang terjadi saat ini.

    “Pemerintah dari Sabang hingga Merauke juga sudah mengakui bahwa Otsus telah gagal, namun belum ada tindakan kongkrit sebagai solusi dari gejolak itu. Padahal Pemerintah sudah harus berdioalog dengan berpatokan pada aspirasi awal dari Rakyat Papua sebelum Otsus diberikan,”

    Thaha menambahkan, memang tidak tercantum dalam Undang-undang Nomor 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otsus Papua, bahwa ketika gagal harus ada dialog tetapi ini tuntutan situasi politik. Al- Hamid juga memberikan beberapa aspek konkrit saat ini yang mungkin dinilai sepele tetapi merupakan wujud nyata kegagalan Otsus.

    Seperti saat ini sangat nyata, di bidang perekonomian, banyak Pedagang Asli Papua yang masih mengeluhkan fasilitas, di bidang pendidikan. Ditambahkan, saat ini masih banyak pegawai dan guru yang mengeluhkan kesejahteraannya belum terpenuhi, fasilitas sekolah yang belum memadai.

    Di bidang kesehatan terbukti, bahwa saat ini banyak perawat yang mogok kerja dan melakukan aksi-aksi karena masalah kesejahteraan. Kondisi kesehatan Rakyat Papua juga tidak terjamin, penyakit akibat kasus HIV/AIDS semakin meningkat. “Pemerintah Pusat diharapkan agar berhenti mengatakan bahwa Otsus sudah final karena Otsus adalah win-win solution bagi Jakarta dan Papua. Stop Bicara Evaluasi Otsus, Segera Gelar Dialog,” tandasnya. (Yarid AP)


    http://banjarmasin.tribunnews.com/mobile/index.php/2012/03/22/intervensi-asing-di-kenaikan-bbm

    Intervensi Asing di Kenaikan BBM

    Oleh: Dwitho Frasetiandy, Kamis, 22 Maret 2012 01:29 wita

    Lebih 75 persen sektor migas kita dikuasai korporasi asing seperti Chevron, Total E&P 10 persen, Conoco Phillips, Medco Energy dan masih banyak lagi. Pertamina “hanya” menguasai pasar migas Indonesia 16 persen.

    Intervensi asing terhadap kenaikan harga BBM sangat terasa ketika keluar UU 20/2001 tentang Minyak dan Gas Bumi yang yang dibuat Indonesia dengan IMF melalui skema Letter of Intent (LOI) untuk “membiayai” pembuatan UU Migas yang lebih berpihak pada investor asing.

    Lebih mencolok dalam UU itu ialah adanya klausul liberalisasi sektor migas di hilir dan penentuan harga BBM sesuai mekanisme pasar, berarti “menghilangkan” subsidi negara terhadap rakyat di sektor migas. Padahal menurut putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK), 21 Desember 2003 atas uji formil UU 21/2001 tentang Migas, membatalkan pasal 12 ayat 3, pasal 22 ayat 1 dan pasal 28 ayat 2.

    Dalam pasal 28 ayat 2, UU 21/2001 itu adalah harga BBM diserahkan kepada mekanisme pasar dan dengan tegas dalam putusannya MK menyatakan pasal ini bertentangan dengan UUD 1945 terutama kepada pasal 33 pasal 2 dan 3.

    Intervensi asing juga terlihat dalam pinjaman luar negeri pemerintah terhadap Bank Dunia sebesar  141 Juta dolar AS pada 2003 dengan Loan No. 4712-IND untuk pengembangan dan penguatan sektor energi di Jawa dan Bali.

    Di klausul proyek pinjaman itu tertulis proyek ini untuk mengurangi beban fiskal dan resiko ekonomi makro dari sektor energi di Indonesia. Tujuan ini akan dicapai melalui dukungan kepada pemerintah dalam usahanya menghilangkan subsidi secara bertahap untuk bahan bakar.

    Skenario liberalisasi harga BBM ini kemudian diikuti BPH Migas dengan menyusun  “Pentahapan Regulasi Usaha Bidang BBM” yang memiliki tiga tahapan yaitu tahap transisi (2001-2005), tahap penyeimbangan (2005-2010) dan tahap pasar terbuka (2010 – dst).

    Di tahap pasar terbuka bahkan disebutkan harga BBM diserahkan mekanisme pasar dan pemerintah dapat memberikan bantuan khusus sebagai pengganti subsidi kepada konsumen tertentu untuk pemakaian BBM jenis tertentu. Bahkan Kementerian ESDM dan BPH Migas menegaskan pada 2014-2015 Indonesia bebas subsidi BBM sehingga harga keekonomian bisa diterapkan.

    Beberapa dokumen tersebut sungguh jelas menggambarkan skenario bahwa memang subsidi BBM bertahap dicabut pemerintah bukan karena adanya kenaikan harga minyak dunia dan tidak tepat sasarannya subsidi BBM tapi lebih karena kuatnya pengaruh dominasi asing dalam kebijakan energi nasional.

    Penyebab APBN Jebol?

    Salah satu alasan yang selalu dikemukan pemerintah terkait kenaikan BBM ini adalah jebolnya APBN karena tingginya harga minyak dunia. Padahal sebagai salah satu negara pengekspor minyak seharusnya kita mendapatkan keuntungan dari naiknya harga minyak dunia, kenyataan berbanding terbalik.

    Dalam APBN 2012 pun asumsinya adalah penerimaan negara dari sektor migas lebih besar dari pengeluaran sektor migas (subsidi dan BPH Migas). Penerimaan di sektor migas dalam APBN 2012 mencapai Rp 220,386 triliun sedangkan pengeluaran pada sektor migas mencapai Rp 200,835 triliun. Artinya ada selisih Rp 19,5 triliun dari penerimaan dan pengeluaran ini.

    Masuk akal bahwa APBN akan terbebani dengan naiknya harga minyak dunia tapi perlu diingat subsidi BBM bukan merupakan pengeluaran terbesar APBN kita. Justru pengeluaran terbesar ada di pembayaran hutang dan biaya birokrasi. Total pembayaran utang mencapai Rp 322,709 triliun yang artinya menyedot lebih dari 20 persen APBN 2012 yang mencapai Rp 1.418,5 triliun.

    Sedangkan untuk biaya birokrasi misalnya belanja pegawai dan belanja barang saja jika digabungkan sudah mencapai Rp 403,9 triliun atau lebih dari 25 persen APBN. Jadi jebolnya APBN akibat kenaikan harga minyak dunia adalah hal yang seharusnya tidak mengganggu keuangan negara secara signifikan.

    Alasan lain kenapa kenaikan BBM ini harus ditolak adalah pemerintah mengatakan bahwa BBM bersubsidi tidak tepat sasaran. Ini pun masih dapat kita perdebatkan. Data Susenas BPS menunjukkan bahwa 65 persen BBM bersubsidi dikonsumsi masyarakat miskin dan menengah ke bawah dengan pendapatan kurang dari 2 sampai 4 dolar AS per hari dan juga dikonsumsi angkutan umum.

    Sementara kalangan menengah ke atas mengkonsumsi delapan persen dari BBM. Pemerintah mengatakan tidak tepat sasarannya BBM bersubsidi justru memperlihatkan lemahnya pengawasan dan penegakan yang dilakukan pemerintah terhadap distribusi BBM sampai ke tingkat daerah. Bukan dengan alasan subsidi tak tepat lalu dengan mudahnya menaikkan harga BBM ke mekanisme pasar.

    Dominasi asing merupakan permasalahan penting di bidang energi negara. Penguasaan asing atas sumber daya alam telah banyak menimbulkan persoalan, tidak hanya bidang energi tapi juga merambah kepada kehidupan ekonomi, sosial budaya dan lingkungan hidup. Misalnya, kasus kontrak karya yang tak berkeadilan, kebocoran subsidi BBM, dan kasus-kasus tambang dan migas lainnya di seluruh negeri. Itu lah mosaik cerita dari kedaulatan energi di Indonesia.

    Dari sini kita ambil kesimpulan sederhana bahwa pemerintah melanggar konstitusinya sendiri jika memberlakukan harga BBM yang diserahkan kepada mekanisme pasar seharusnya sesuai dengan amanat konstitusi kita.

    Manager Kampanye WALHI Kalsel
    Editor : Dheny


    http://www.majalahpotretindonesia.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3646:mengusut-penyimpangan-dana-otsus&catid=81:nasional&Itemid=458

    Mengusut Penyimpangan Dana Otsus

    Friday, 23 March 2012 20:28

    DIREKTUR Eksekutif Institute for Defense Security and Peace Studies (IDSPS) Mufti Makarim mengatakan pemerintah harus berani mengusut dugaan penyimpangan dana otonomi khusus Papua agar tidak menjadi preseden buruk bagi pembangunan di daerah itu. Menurutnya penyimpangan dana otsus seperti yang pernah dilansir BPK merupakan salah satu kendala dalam perdamaian di Papua.

    Dana-dana yang seharusnya dirasakan oleh masyarakat Papua diselewengkan untuk memperkaya para pejabat dan elit tertentu. “Akibatnya, seharusnya dana itu dapat menyejahterakan masyarakat tapi kenyataannya tidak dirasakan masyarakat. Itu menjadi salah satu kecemburuan masyarakat dan selalu menjadi alasan orang untuk tidak percaya terhadap pemerintah,” katanya di Jakarta, Kamis 22 Maret 2012.

    Dana otsus telah dimulai sejak 2002. Pemerintah mengucurkan sekitar Rp 3 triliun tiap tahun untuk dana otsus dan hampir setiap tahun bertambah. “Namun dana ini belum dapat dirasa menyentuh masyarakat Papua,” katanya. Dana Otsus pada 2012 untuk Provinsi Papua sebesar Rp3,83 triliun dan Papua Barat sebesar Rp 1,64 triliun.

    Dana Otsus Papua pada 2012 naik sekitar 23 persen dibanding 2011. Selain dana otsus, pemerintah juga akan mengalokasikan dana tambahan infrastruktur untuk Papua sejumlah Rp571,4 miliar dan Papua Barat sebanyak Rp 428,6 miliar. Selain itu, menurut dia, peta jalan damai di Papua juga membutuhkan pengusutan yang tuntas dan sungguh-sungguh terhadap pembunuhan Theys H Eluay.

    “Pengusutannya saat ini mengambang, ketika kecurigaan ditujukan ke Jakarta, Jakarta tidak bisa memberikan jawaban pasti,” katanya. Selain itu, paradigma kebijakan keamanan di Papua juga harus direvisi. Pengalaman selama ini, pendekatan keamanan dan militer tidak menyelesaikan masalah dan justru terus menimbulkan perlawanan.(ant/hms/red)


    http://tabloidjubi.com/interviews-a-indepth-stories/18159-pendidikan-papua-malang-nian-nasibmu

    Pendidikan Papua, Malang Nian Nasibmu!

    by Musa Abubar, 07 May 2012

    Jayapura, (7/5)  — Baru saja peringatan hari ulang tahun pendidikan nasional (hardiknas) tepatnya, 2 Mei diseluruh Indonesia termasuk di Papua. Tiap tahun pemerintah pusat maupun daerah rajin memperingatinya. Setiap peringatan, pendidikan ditanah air dinilai mengalami kemajuan.

    Di Papua pemerintah memuji bahkan menyatakan pendidikan sudah maju. Kesannya, pernyataan itu membungkus kekritisan yang terjadi. Pemerintah Papua terkesan tutup mata dengan kondisi pendidikan di Papua yang semakin kritis alias segera membutuhkan pertolongan. Sebaliknya, mereka (pemerintah) memuji dan mengatakan pendidikan telah mengalami perubahan.

    Dalam peringatan Hardiknas di Jayapura, 2 Mei 2012 lalu, Kepala Dinas Pendidikan Pemuda dan Olaharaga (Dispora) Provinsi Papua, James Modouw mengatakan secara umum pendidikan di Provinsi Papua mengalami peningkatan yang cukup baik mulai dari wilayah perkotaan dan pinggiran dan juga wilayah terisolasi, meski demikian Dinas Pendidikan Pemuda dan Olahrag (Dispora) Provinsi Papua tidak berhenti namun terus melakukan upaya untuk peningkatan yang labih baik.

    Modouw menjelaskan, pendidikan di Papua dikategorikan dalam tiga (3) wilayah yakni wilayah Kota, wilayah pinggiran dan wilayah terisolasi, dimana semua penduduk di wilayah itu harus tersentuh oleh pendidikan.

    “Hal ini yang menjadi beban bagi kami, dikarenakan kondisi geografi wilayah Provinsi Papua yang cukup rumit untuk ditembus, dan kebanyakan masyarakat masih berada pada kelompok pemburu atau tradisional,” ungkap Modouw sebagaimana dilansir harian bintang Papua, Kamis, 3 Mei 2012.

    Lelaki asal Sentani ini menandaskan, pendidikan di Papua dikembangkan menjadi model pendidikan transformasi peradaban, yakni dimulai dari daerah-daerah terpencil, dimana masyarakatnya masih sangat terisolir, dan dimasukan kedalam teknologi peradaban baru.

    “Yang disebut sebagai satu loncatan peradaban karena adanya kemajuan teknologi, sementara untuk wilayah Kota kita lakukan dalam bentuk peningkatan mutu pendidikan,” tuturnya. Sementara untuk daerah-daerah di luar Kota seperti daerah pinggiran sampai di daerah terpencil hingga saat ini masih mengusahakan akses, agar semua masyarakat baik yang hidup di daerah pinggiran maupun terisolir mendapatkan layanan pendidikan.

    Namun, untuk daerah terisolasi terutama masyarat yang ada di daerah yang masih mengembara atau hidupnya berpindah-pindah diupayakan untuk pemberian live school atau pelatihan yang dapat mengadopsi peradaban baru serta memperbaiki tekhnologi. “Hal ini guna dapat memperbaiki taraf hidup mereka serta kesehatan mereka, yang mana mereka ini membutuhkan live school dalam meningkatkan taraf hidupnya,” tuturnya.

    Peradaban tidak hanya dalam peradaban saja tetapi pendidikan berlangsung dalam keluarga serta masyarakat. Dimana, dalam masyarakat dan keluarga lebih banyak berlaku model contoh mencontoh serta saling teladan dari tokoh yang menjadi figure dalam keluarga. “Oleh sebab itu, di rumah figurnya adalah orang tua sementara di dalam masyarakat figurnya adalah tokoh masyarakat menjadi panutan dan idola mereka inilah yang disebut panutan,” imbuhnya.

    Masih dalam peringatan Hardiknas, pejabat gubernur Papua, Syamsul Arief Rivai, saat membacakan amanat Mendiknas, mengatakan tema hari Pendidikan Nasional tahun 2012 ini adalah Bangkitnya Generasi Emas Indonesia. Tema ini sejalan dengan hakikat pendidikan yang telah ditekankan oleh bapak pendidikan nasional kita, yaitu Ki Hajar Dewantara, yang pada hari ini kita peringati hari kelahirannya sebagai Hari Pendidikan Nasional.

    Menurut dia, pada periode tahun 2010 sampai tahun 2035 kita harus melakukan investasi besar-besaran dalam bidang pengembangan sumber daya manusia (SDM) sebagai upaya menyiapkan generasi 2045, yaitu 100 tahun Indonesia merdeka. Penyiapan akses seluas-luasnya kepada seluruh anak bangsa untuk memasuki dunia pendidikan, mulai dari pendidikan anak usia dini (PAUD) sampai ke perguruan tinggi.

    Tentu perluasan akses tersebut harus diikuti dengan peningkatan kualitas pendidikan, sekalipun pendidikan itu adalah sistem rekayasa sosial terbaik guna meningkatkan kesejahteraan, keharkatan dan kemartabatan. Dalam rangka mempersiapkan generasi emas ini membutuhkan kebijakan yang sistematis dan memungkinkan.

    Selanjutnya,  terjadinya mobilitas vertikal secara massif. Untuk itu, mulai tahun 2011 telah dilakukan gerakan pendidikan anak usia dini, penuntasan dan peningkatan kualitas pendidikan dasar penyiapan pendidikan menengah universal (PMU) yang akan dimulai tahun 2013.

    Disamping itu, perluasan akses ke perguruan tinggi juga disiapkan melalui pendirian perguruan tinggi negeri di daerah perbatasan dan memberikan akses secara khusus kepada masyarakat yang memiliki keterbatasan kemampuan ekonomi, tetapi berkemampuan akademik.

    Kesannya pernyataan itu sementara berlangsung dan berlaku. Padahal, sama sekali tak terealisasi. Pendidikan di Papua banyak bolong sana-sini. Hampir di setiap daerah pedalaman serta wilayah yang tak jauh dari kota, kondisi pendidikannya  kritis. Mulai dari fasilitas, bangunan sekolah, kesejahteraan guru, rumah guru  hingga tenaga pengajar yang mengajar.

    Sejumlah guru dan para siswa terus menerus mengeluhkannya. Keluhan itu hampir tiap tahun disampaikan ke pemerintah. Meski demikian tak ada perubahan. Masalah pendidikan masih mendera seluruh wilayah di Papua. Satu sisi pemerintah mengakui pendidikan memprihatinkan.

    Pada 2007 lalu, mantan Gubernur Papua, Barnabas Suebu, SH menilai kondisi pendidikan di Papua cukup memprihatinkan.  Ia mengaku, kecewa terhadap pendidikan di Papua. Dimana guru-guru tidak mau ditempatkan di kampung-kampung. Hal ini menjadi satu masalah dan kendala yang harus dihadapi pemerintah dalam upaya meningkatkan mutu pendidikan di Papua.

    Padahal kata Gubernur, dilihat dari jumlah guru yang ada saat ini jumlahnya sudah mencukupi. Hanya saja, pendistribusiannya yang kurang merata. Artinya, ada daerah gurunya terisi, tetapi ada daerah sama sekali tidak ada guru.

    Sekarang bagaimana agar pendistribusian guru-guru di kampung-kampung bisa merata serta ditunjang dengan tunjangan insentif. Namun dituntut pula, apabila insentif sudah diberikan, para guru-guru harus sungguh-sungguh bekerja. Tapi, tak ada upaya perbaikan.

    Keluhan Murid dan Guru

    Sejumlah wilayah di Papua kondisi pendidikannya kritis. Salah satu wilayah diantaranya di Pantai Lori, Serui, Kabupaten Kepulauan Yapen. Di Sekolah Menengah Pertama sekaligus dengan Sekolah Dasar Satu Atap kampung Paparu, Serui, Kabupaten Kepulauan Yapen, sejumlah siswa mengeluhkan kekurangan guru dan fasilitas di sekolah itu.

    David Rumkorem, siswa kelas IX (sembilan) SMP Satu Atap Paparu mengaku, proses belajar mengajar di sekolahnya tidak berjalan dengan baik lantaran kekurangan guru. “Sekolah tidak jalan dengan baik karena Cuma satu guru saja yang mengajar,” tuturnya. Padahal, lanjut dia, saban hari mereka (para) berjalan kaki dari kampungnya masing-masing ke sekolah hanya untuk bersekolah.

    David mengisahkan, setiap pagi ia harus berjalan kaki dari kampung Waindu (kampung di mana ia tinggal) ke kampung Paparu (kampung di mana sekolah itu berada). “Setiap hari, kami jalan kaki ke sekolah. Misalnya, dari kampung Waindu ke Paparu pukul 06.00 WIT, sampai di Paparu  pukul 07.30 WIT. Namun, proses belajar mengajar tidak berjalan

    Semangat bersekolah juga datang dari Heny Miryam Fonataba, salah satu siswa di sekolah SMP itu.  Miryam mengaku, setiap pagi ia bangun pada pukul 05.00 WIT. Saat bangun, ia bergegas segera menuju kamar mandi untuk mandi. Setelah mandi, dia dengan cepat mengenakan seragam sekolahnya di badan lalu mengemas tas, buku dan balpoin yang hendak di bawa ke sekolah.

    Setelah semuanya sudah di kemas, ia bersama-sama dengan teman-temannya berjalan kaki menyusuri pantai lori ke sekolah. “Saya bangun begini saya lihat sudah jam 05.00 WIT. Jadi saya cepat-cepat menyimpan tempat tidur  dan buku-buku lalu masukan ke dalam tas sekolah. Setelah itu, cepat-cepat mandi pagi. Setelah mandi, saya pakai baju seragam. Sesudah itu, saya berangkat bersama teman-teman ke sekolah.”

    Ketika tiba di sekolah, hanya menerima satu pelajaran yakni pelajaran Ilmu Pengetahuan Alam (IPA) Biologi. Hanya satu guru yang mengajarkan mata pelajaran itu. “Tiba di sekolah sudah pukul 08.00 WIT. Pada jam itu, lonceng masuk sekolah di bunyikan. Saya dan teman-teman langsung masuk sekolah lalu berdoa.

    Setelah berdoa kita di bagi ke setiap kelas. Di kelas, kami hanya menerima pelajaran IPA Bilogi. Tidak ada guru lain. Tidak ada guru yang cukup untuk mengajar di sekolah ini. Para murid berharap ada penambahan guru. Kami tidak punya guru yang cukup. Kita mohon supaya ada penambahan guru.”

    Tak hanya keluhan soal tenaga guru, sejumlah siswa di sekolah itu juga mengeluhkan kekurangan fasilitas sekolah.  Martina Papai salah satu siswa di sekolah itu mengaku, disekolahnya tak ada komputer. Martina  dan rekan-rekan kesulitan dalam belajar lantaran tak ada fasilitas pendukung.

    Mereka berharap ada pengadaan fasilitas yang cukup ke sekolahnya agar memudahkan mereka dalam belajar. “Kami dari sekolah minta bantu supaya bapak membantu kami dengan alat laptop. Supaya, kami bisa mengenal bagaimana cara pegang laptop.” Tidak hanya kekurangan komputer, tetapi kekurangan buku juga menerpa sekolah ini.

    David Rumkorem seorang siswa di sekolah itu menyatakan,  sekolahnya masih kekurangan buku dan peralatan praktek. Komputer juga belum ada. “Kami masih kekurangan buku. Peralatan praktek juga tidak ada.”  Menurutnya, tidak ada komputer sehingga sampai saat ini mereka belum mendapat pelajaran komputer.

    “Kita mau praktek, tapi tidak ada alat yang kita mau pakai untuk praktek. Kami mohon supaya ada buku dan alat praktek. Itu saja yang kami minta tolong bapak bupati bantu kami,” ujar Yeta Yenteriri siswa kelas VIII SMP Satu Atap Paparu. Tak hanya para siswa yang mengeluh, guru juga mengeluh.

    Mereka mengeluhkan statusnya sebagai guru honor, kesejahteraan dan perumahan. Yosina Dike diabaikan oleh Pemerintah Kabupaten Jayapura, Papua. Delapan tahun perempuan asal Sentani ini mengabdi sebagai guru honor di SD Inpres Doyo Baru, Sentani, Kabupaten Jayapura.

    Namun, sampai tahun ini, 2012 dirinya belum diangkat menjadi guru tetap. Tak hanya itu, pembayaran honornya minim, tiap bulan. Jatuh tertimpa tangga berulang kali, tapi tak pernah ditolong.  Pepatah ini pantas dikenakan ke Yosina. Dia mengaku, dirinya diminta sang kepala sekolah sebagai guru honor sejak tanggal 16 September 2004 di SD Inpres Doyo Baru, Sentani, Kabupaten Jayapura, Papua.

    Pertama sekali masuk, di percayakan untuk mengajar mata pelajaran bahasa inggris di kelas empat. Saat itu, bahasa inggris dasar yang diajarkan kepada para siswa. “Alfabednya, non merik, identitas pribadi dengan bahasa inggris itu yang saya ajarkan kepada anak-anak,” ujarnya.

    Tak hanya disatu kelas ia mengajar, hampir separoh dari ruang kelas di sekolah yang kosong alias tak ada guru, sang kepala sekolah menyuruh perempuan asal Sentani ini masuk mengajar. “Kadang ada kelas yang gurunya tidak masuk mengajar di ganti dengan saya. Saya rolling mengajar pindah dari kelas yang satu ke kelas yang lain.

    Begitu terus menerus. Meski demikian, saya tidak pernah digaji. Saya jalan begitu saja tanpa sepeser pun di tangan,” ungkap perempuan berkulit hitam manis ini. Sejak tahun 2009, Dinas Pendidikan turun ke setiap sekolah mendata guru-guru honor yang belum diangkat. Saat itu, para guru di sekolah memasukan data guru honor termasuk Yosina Dike.

    Tak hanya itu, pihak dinas juga mendatangi Yosina melihat berkasnya. Ada, 10 guru yang lulus. Tetapi, sampai saat ini belum ada informasi soal Surat Keputusan (SK) dari Dinas Pendidikan dan Pengajaran Kabupaten Jayapura, Papua. Sementara, rekan lainya yang lulus sudah mendapat SK.

    Hingga 2012 ini, perempuan yang sulit mengeluarkan senyum ini belum juga diangkat sebagai guru. Kepala SD Yayasan Pendidikan Kristen (YPK) Kampung Sarawandori, Serui, Kabupaten Kepulauan Yapen, Marinus Manufandu mengatakan tunjangan yang di berikan bagi para tenaga pengajar disamaratakan.

    Sampai saat ini, masih bermasalah. Banyak guru masih mempersoalkan tunjangan tersebut. “Masih banyak guru yang pertanyakan tunjangan ini. Tunjangan bagi guru yang bertugas di daerah terpencil disamaratakan dengan mereka yang ada di kota. Hal ini membuat banyak guru yang di tempatkan di daerah terpencil memilih mengajar di kota,” kata Marinus Manufandu, belum lama ini.

    Marinus menandaskan, tunjangan yang di berikan Pemerintah setempat  bagi tenaga guru di daerah pinggiran kota sebesar Rp. 100.000. Tunjangan yang sama juga berlaku bagi mereka (guru) yang bertugas di daerah terpencil dan sangat terpencil. “Hal ini membuat banyak guru menilai, saya mengajar di kota juga tunjangannya sama dengan teman-teman yang mengajar di daerah terpencil dan sangat terpencil,” ujarnya.

    Lelaki asal Biak ini menilai, penerapan tunjangan tersebut tidak menghargai para guru yang bertugas di daerah terpencil dan sangat terpencil. “Bagi saya, tunjangan ini jangan disamaratakan. Karena, kebutuhan dan jangkauannya berbeda dengan mereka yang ada di kota,” ujarnya lagi. Ternyata, tunjangan tersebut tidak hanya bermasalah bagi para guru di tingkat sekolah dasar.

    Sadar Parlindungan Saragi, guru SMK Negeri I Kainui  mengatakan, tunjangan bagi guru juga bermasalah bagi para guru yang mengajar di tingkat SMA/SMK. “Tunjangan ini juga bermasalah bagi kami  para guru yang mengajar di tingkat SMA/SMK. Tunjangan tersebut tidak jelas,” ungkapnya.

    Padahal, menurut Surat Keputusan (SK) Gubernur Provinsi Papua Tahun 2005 tentang tunjangan guru sesuai jarak jauh-dekat nilainya berbeda. Peraturan ini menguraikan tunjangan untuk guru yang bertugas di daerah pinggiran dan terepencil dihargai sebesar Rp. 100.000. Sementara untuk daerah sangat terpencil sekitar Rp. 500.000.

    Yehud Ataruri, salah satu guru SMP Negeri I Aryepi, Distrik Kosiwo, Serui, Kabupaten Kepulauan Yapen, Papua, mengaku sampai saat ini mereka tak mendapatkan rumah dinas. Padahal, Aryepi sangat jauh dari kota Serui.  “Tidak ada pembangunan rumah guru (rumah dinas) untuk kami para guru yang bertugas di SMP Aryepi,” kata guru mata pelajaran bahasa Indonesia ini

    Menurut Yehud,  perjalanan dari kota menuju Aryepi cukup jauh. Perjalanan ke Aryepi dengan kendaraan roda empat (taksi) angkutan umum memakan waktu dua jam perjalanan. Sementara, perjalanan dengan menggunakan kendaraan roda dua (motor) membutuhkan waktu satu jam perjalanan. “Kalau pakai taksi dari kota ke Aryepi butuh waktu selama dua jam perjalanan. Selanjutnya, kalau pakai motor butuh waktu satu jam perjalanan,” ujarnya.

    Tanggapan

    Ketua PGRI Kabupaten Kepulauan Yapen, Ones Runtuboi menandaskan pihaknya berani mengatakan pendidikan di Yapen rapuh. “Saya berani katakan pendidikan di Kabupaten Kepulauan Yapen ini rapuh. Karena, sampai saat ini banyak masalah pendidikan masih terjadi di sejumlah perkampungan dan kota Serui,” ujar Runtuboi saat diwawancarai. Lanjut Ones, pertama rasio geografis yang tidak merata.

    Kedua, rasio guru. Rasio geografis berpengaruh pada penempatan guru di setiap perkampungan atau distrik. Persoalan utama juga berdampak pada rasio guru. Rasio guru yang ditempatkan oleh dinas pendidikan kabupaten kepulauan di sepanjang kepulauan ini, tidak memperhatikan rasio guru.

    Kebanyakan di setiap sekolah dasar yang ada di perkampungan, seorang guru mengajar dari kelas satu sampai enam. Parahnya lagi, guru yang memegang semua kelas itu adalah guru agama. Meski demikian, usai ujian akhir, seluruh siswa kelas enam diluluskan.

    Mengatasi kekurangan guru terutama di daerah pedaman Papua, Universitas Cenderawasih Jayapura sebagai perguruan tinggi tertua di bumi cenderawasih berupaya dengan berbagai cara untuk mengatasi masalah itu. Universitas Cendrawasih akan melakukan kerja sama di bidang pendidikan dengan aparat TNI di Papua, untuk mengatasi kesenjangan pendidikan masyarakat di daerah terpencil.

    Kerja sama yang dimaksud berupa pelatihan bagi prajurit TNI yang bertugas dipelosok agar mampu mengajar anak-anak didaerah tempat mereka bertugas. Hal tersebut disampaikan Festus Simbiak, di sela-sela acara peresmian Pusat Kajian Papua, di Auditorium FISIP UI, Depok, tulis gatra news.com, Senin (9/4).

    Menurut Festus, Uncen tidak pernah menyuruh anggota TNI dalam hal ini Babinsa di daerah terpencil di Papua untuk mengajar. Melainkan, pihaknya hanya berpikir untuk membantu membekali pendidikan mereka agar dapat membantu tenaga guru yang kurang di sekolah yang berada di daerah terpencil. Dengan begitu, proses belajar mengajar yang dapat berjalan.

    “Maksud kami, bukan suruh TNI dalam hal ini Banbinsa yang bertugas di perkampungan untuk mengajar seperti tanggapan para pembaca terhadap pemberitaan ini. Maksudnya adalah Uncen berpikir untuk membantu membekali mereka dengan ilmu supaya dapat membantu guru untuk mengajar anak-anak kita di sekolah yang tenaga gurunya kurang di daerah pedesaan. Karena, selama ini kondisi itu masih terjadi,” ungkap Festus

    Dia menjelaskan, pemikiran itu dibuat, karena selama ini para Banbinsa yang bertugas di wilayah perkampungan di Papua, tak banyak sibuk. Kebanyakan diantaranya memiliki waktu luang (kosong). “Dari pada mereka tinggal-tinggal saja dan tidak ada kerja, mendingan mereka dibekali untuk membantu guru mengajar,” tuturnya.

    Selain itu, lanjut dia, Uncen juga tak menempatkan guru. Perguruan tinggi hanya bertanggung jawab untuk membekali dengan ilmu pendidikan. Selanjutnya, penempatan tenaga mengajar itu merupakan tanggung jawab pemerintah Papua. Festus mengatakan, pemikiran itu bertujuan untuk menolong sejumlah anak sekolah di wilayah pedesaan yang sulit mendapatkan pendidikan karena kekurangan tenaga guru.

    Bahkan, tidak ada guru sama sekali. “Sampai sekarang kan, masalah kekurangan guru masih terjadi di mana-mana. Makanya, ada pemikiran seperti itu,” ujarnya.  Pemikiran itu juga merupakan salah satu alternatif  yang di tempuh untuk mengatasi masalah pendidikan, khususnya kekurangan tenaga pengajar (guru) di daerah perkampungan di wilayah paling timur Indonesia ini. Obyeknya adalah bagaimana peningkatan mutu pendidikan di wilayah terpencil.

    Sekolah Guru Yang Hilang

    Sekolah Guru Bawahan (SGB), Sekolah Guru Olahraga (SGO) dan Sekolah Pendidikan Guru (SPG) pernah hadir di Papua. Kehadiran sekolah itu sangat membantu tenaga guru karena dibangun disemua wilayah di wilayah paling timur Indonesia ini. Namun sayang sejak tahun 1980-an  sekolah ini ditutup.

    Sejak itupula Papua  mengalami kekurangan guru. Saat ini guru tamatan sekolah tersebut sudah berkurang, karena mereka tua dan tidak bisa mengajar. Sedangkan, generasi muda Papua kurang berminat menjadi guru. Ada FKIP (Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidiakn) dan PGSD (Pendidikan Guru Sekolah Dasar) di Universitas Cenderawasih (Uncen), Jayapura.

    Tetapi jauh dari kabupaten lain. Itupun tidak didukung dengan fasilitas dan dosen yang memadai. Sosok guru yang dulu sebagai pahlawan tanpa tanda jasa, kini suram, guru dipandang sebelah mata dan terjadi degradasi. Apati muncul, karena ada kacamata negatif tetang guru.

    Bisa jadi benar, karena upah gajinya tidak cukup untuk menjamin hari tua. Menjadi guru sebagai “pilihan” terakhir daripada mengangur. Bisa dibilang ini permasalahan mendasar yang sedang dihadapi negara ini. Terkait dengan itu, guru di kota besar pun saat ini memiliki masalah yang kompleks, bukan hanya masalah kesejahteraan, tetapi juga masalah profesionalitas yang kurang terperhatikan pemerintah maupun pengelola universitas dan sekolah. (Jubi/Musa Abubar)

    http://tabloidjubi.com/interviews-a-indepth-stories/10396-otsus-riwayatmu-kini

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 2:01 PM on 2012/05/31 Permalink  

    Layanan AMonEv (Analisis, Monitoring, Evaluasi) 

    Mutu produk dan layanan kami adalah yang sangat terbaik dan tercepat.

    Highest quality, doctoral quality, shortest time ever in producing any writing in indonesia.

    kami sudah membuktikan bisa membuat sekian banyak skripsi dalam waktu 1 minggu dan tesis dalam waktu 1 bulan dan proposal disertasi dalam 2 minggu.

    pembuatan bahan presentasi dan
    pengajaran (tutorial) mempertahankan karya tulis ilmiah di depan sidang penguji. PASTI LULUS.

    setiap penulisan dimulai dari nol, berdasarkan minat dan kemauan serta kemampuan klien.

    asli, original, otentik, genuine, bukan copy-paste, bukan punya orang lain, bukan sekedar ganti nama penulis.

    data dan referensi semua dari kami. hubungi, datang, dan buktikan sendiri.

    Penelitian/Analisa kuantitatif: SPSS 21, e-views 7.1, amos, stata 11
    Penelitian/Analisa kualitatif.

    Pendidikan pembuatan karya ilmiah (scientific papers):

    1. Bahan orasi (pidato, speech) ilmiah dan populer.
    2. Analisis Kinerja.
    3. Analisis Manajemen Kinerja.
    4. Karya tulis ilmiah.
    5. Penelitian empiris.
    6. Makalah (paper).
    7. Tugas Akhir.
    8. Skripsi (bachelor thesis).
    9. Tesis (master thesis).
    10. Disertasi (doctoral thesis, dissertation).

    Kami juga memberikan pelayanan pembuatan:

    1. Profil Produk dan/atau jasa (product profile, service profile)
    2. Profil Usaha (company profile).
    3. Profil Perorangan/individu (biography, autobiography).
    4. Rencana pengembangan usaha (business development plan).
    5. Rencana usaha (business plan).
    6. Rencana pemasaran (marketing plan).
    7. Rencana aksi (action plan).

    Hubungi kami di 0852.1035.6516

    No SMS please.
    No call at night please.

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 5:21 AM on 2012/05/31 Permalink  

    The Bank Central Asia Files

    1. http://www.klikbca.com/download/PR%20FS%202003-03%20English.PDF
    2. http://www.bca.co.id/include/download/BUKU_BCA_AR_2009_INA.pdf
    3. http://www.bca.co.id/include/download/BCA_Hasil_RUPST-BI_MAY_2012.pdf
    4. http://vpr.hkma.gov.hk/pdf/400344/ar_10/ar_10_pt02.pdf
    5. http://www.bca.co.id/include/download/laporan_tahunan2011/lapkeuENG_139-272.pdf
    6. http://pdf.marketpublishers.com/bac_swot/pt_bank_central_asia_tbk_swot_analysis_bac.pdf
    7. http://documents.bmc.com/products/documents/67/50/226750/226750.pdf
    8. http://library.binus.ac.id/eColls/eThesis/Bab4/Bab%204___10-107.pdf
    9. http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=28264629&key=&pass=
    10. http://repository.maranatha.edu/393/1/Penilaian%20Kinerja%20Keuangan%20PTindf.pdf
    11. http://digilib.umm.ac.id/files/disk1/263/jiptummpp-gdl-s1-2008-rikaoktavi-13115-1.+PENDA-N.pdf
    12. http://thesis.binus.ac.id/ecolls/doc/Lampiran/2011-2-00033-AK%20Lampiran.pdf
    13. http://www.gunadarma.ac.id/library/articles/postgraduate/management/Perbankan/Artikel_91207055.pdf
    14. http://majour.maranatha.edu/index.php/maksi/article/viewFile/690/641
    15. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/29479/1/Skripsi002.pdf
    16. http://repository.ipb.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/16650/A04awi1.pdf?sequence=1
    17. http://www.bca.co.id/include/download/14_MDA-INA.pdf
    18. http://repository.unila.ac.id:8180/dspace/bitstream/123456789/955/1/laptunilapp-gdl-s2-2006-abdihariku-521-2005_ts_-1.pdf
    19. http://ejournal.unud.ac.id/abstrak/ok%20alit%20suardana.doc
    20. http://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/direct/77089974?extension=pdf&ft=1338404847&lt=1338408457&uahk=seWUw/W0PIKPMs7QGYiq9kMNNkU
    21. http://repository.unhas.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/1528/SKRIPSI%20LENGKAP%20-FEB-MANAJEMEN-%200612-%20DECHRISTA%20R.G%20SAKUL.pdf?sequence=1
    22. http://repository.uii.ac.id/310/SK/I/0/00/001/001079/uii-skripsi-analisis%20perbandinga-04311093-M.RASYID%20RIDHA-3672051354-abstract.pdf
    23. http://jurnal.pdii.lipi.go.id/admin/jurnal/112mei10107116.pdf
    24. http://digilib.unsri.ac.id/download/Artikel-02%20(Yuliani)-rev01.pdf
    25. http://eprints.upnjatim.ac.id/1199/1/file1.pdf
    26. http://repository.upi.edu/operator/upload/s_l0151_0606677_chapter2.pdf
    27. http://bbs.binus.edu/journal/RndData/Journal/Data/20110923091800.pdf
    28. http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=41494181&key=&pass=
    29. http://www.docstoc.com/Docs/DownloadFile.ashx?docId=41494181&key=&pass=
    30. http://etd.eprints.ums.ac.id/7472/1/_B200060201.pdf
    31. http://isjd.pdii.lipi.go.id/admin/jurnal/551081832.pdf
    32. http://fekonunismuh.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/jurnal-utuh-ok.pdf
    33. http://repository.unhas.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/987/SKRIPSI%20LENGKAP%20-%20FEB%20MANAJEMEN%200312%20-%20MAY%20KARLINA%20DEWI2.pdf?sequence=1
    34. http://eprints.undip.ac.id/23467/1/AYU_WAHDIKORIN_-_SKRIPSI.PDF
    35. http://digilib.unsri.ac.id/download/Artikel-02%20(Yuliani)-rev01.pdf
    36. http://bbs.binus.edu/journal/RndData/Journal/Data/20110923091800.pdf
    37. http://www.journal.uii.ac.id/index.php/JAAI/article/viewFile/39/136
    38. http://repository.upi.edu/operator/upload/s_l0151_0606677_chapter4.pdf
    39. http://thesis.binus.ac.id/Doc/Bab3/2011-2-00033-AKBAB%20III.pdf
    40. http://lemlit.unila.ac.id/file/arsip%202010./JBM/JBM-September%202006.pdf

    Bank Central Asia

    Laporan Keuangan 2010-2011

    lapkeuENG_139-272.pdf, http://www.bca.co.id/include/download/laporan_tahunan2011/lapkeuENG_139-272.pdf

    SKRIPSI

    UNDIP

    Ardea Frandiko, Analisis Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Kinerja Bank Konvensional di Indonesia dengan Menggunakan Analisis CAMELS, 2005-2010, Skripsi, Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 2011, Skripsi002.pdf, http://eprints.undip.ac.id/29479/1/Skripsi002.pdf

    Ayu Wahdikorin, Pengaruh Modal Intelektual Terhadap Kinerja Keuangan Perusahaan Perbankan yang Terdaftar di BEI, 2007-2009, Skripsi, Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, 2010, AYU_WAHDIKORIN_-_SKRIPSI.PDF, http://eprints.undip.ac.id/23467/1/AYU_WAHDIKORIN_-_SKRIPSI.PDF

    UNHAS

    May Karlina Dewi, Analisis Pengaruh CAR, LDR, dan ROA terhadap Tingkat Suku Bunga Deposito Berjangka Pada BCA, 2001-2010, Skripsi, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 2012, SKRIPSI LENGKAP – FEB MANAJEMEN 0312 – MAY KARLINA DEWI2.pdf, http://repository.unhas.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/987/SKRIPSI%20LENGKAP%20-%20FEB%20MANAJEMEN%200312%20-%20MAY%20KARLINA%20DEWI2.pdf?sequence=1

    Dechrista R.G Sakul, Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi ROA pada Bank Swasta Nasional di Indonesia, 2006-2010, Skripsi, Fakultas Ekonomi dan Bisnis, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar, 2012, SKRIPSI LENGKAP -FEB-MANAJEMEN- 0612- DECHRISTA R.G SAKUL.pdf, http://repository.unhas.ac.id/bitstream/handle/123456789/1528/SKRIPSI%20LENGKAP%20-FEB-MANAJEMEN-%200612-%20DECHRISTA%20R.G%20SAKUL.pdf?sequence=1

    JURNAL

    Ketut Alit Suardana, Pengaruh Rasio CAMEL terhadap Return Saham, 2003-2005, Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Udayana, 30.06.2009, ok alit suardana.doc, http://ejournal.unud.ac.id/abstrak/ok%20alit%20suardana.doc
    stock return = fungsi (ROA, CAR, LDR, BOPO, EPS)

    Yuliani, Hubungan Efisiensi Operasional dengan Kinerja Profitabilitas pada Sektor Perbankan yang Go-Public di BEJ, 2004-2006, Jurnal Manajemen & Bisnis Sriwijaya, Vol.5, No.10, Des.2007, 15-43, Artikel-02 (Yuliani)-rev01.pdf, http://digilib.unsri.ac.id/download/Artikel-02%20(Yuliani)-rev01.pdf
    ROA = fungsi (MSDN (pangsa pasar DPK), BOPO,CAR, LDR)

    Hartono dan Raymundus Parulian Sihotang, Analisis Hubungan Profitabilitas dengan Pergerakan Harga Saham pada Sektor Usaha Perbankan di BEI, Journal of Applied Finance and Accounting 2(2) 51-66, 20110923091800.pdf, http://bbs.binus.edu/journal/RndData/Journal/Data/20110923091800.pdf
    2003-2007
    π = à HS atau Harga Saham = fungsi (π)
    π = Net Profit Margin (NPM), Return On Assets (ROA), Return On Equity (ROE)

    Silviana Agustami, Pengaruh Kinerja Keuangan terhadap Harga Saham: Studi Kasus pada Perbankan yang Listing di BEI, 2005-2008, Percikan, Vol.112, Mei 2010, hal.107-116, 112mei10107116.pdf, http://jurnal.pdii.lipi.go.id/admin/jurnal/112mei10107116.pdf
    EVA à HS atau Harga Saham = fungsi (EVA)
    EVA = NOPAT – (WACC x Capital)
    NOPAT = Net Operation Profit After Tax

    Peter dan Julianti, Penilaian Kinerja Keuangan BCA dengan Menggunakan Metode EVA sebagai Alat Pengukuran Kinerja Perusahaan, 2005-2009, Akurat Jurnal Ilmiah Akuntansi, No.05, Vol.2, Mei-Agustus 2011, Penilaian Kinerja Keuangan PTindf.pdf, http://repository.maranatha.edu/393/1/Penilaian%20Kinerja%20Keuangan%20PTindf.pdf, 690-1992-1-PB.pdf, http://majour.maranatha.edu/index.php/maksi/article/viewFile/690/641
    NOPAT pendekatan operasional vs NOPAT pendekatan pembiayaan

    Vicky Rahma Putri dan Niki Lukviarman, Pengukuran Kinerja Bank Komersial dengan Pendekatan Efisiensi: Studi terhadap Perbankan Go-Public di Indonesia, JAII Vol.12 No.1, June 2008: 37-52, 39-162-1-PB.pdf, http://www.journal.uii.ac.id/index.php/JAAI/article/viewFile/39/136
    2002-2004
    CAMELS: 4 variabel η dan 2 variabel π
    η = Biaya Op / Laba Op
    (π / TK) = laba sblm pajak / [(TKt + TKt-1)/2]
    NIM = pendapatan bersih / [(asett + asett-1)/2]
    RDIBA (Return Difference of Interest Bearing Assets)
    π = ROE, ROA

    Siti Parwita Eka Kirana, Analisis Perbandingan Kinerja Keuangan Bank Devisa dan Bank Non Devisa di Indonesia, 2006-2007, Universitas Gunadarma, Jakarta, 20.05.2010, Artikel_91207055.pdf, http://www.gunadarma.ac.id/library/articles/postgraduate/management/Perbankan/Artikel_91207055.pdf
    ROA, ROE, LDR

    Syamsu Alam, Perbandingan Kinerja Keuangan Perbankan Nasional Sebelum dan Sesudah Krisis Keuangan Global, Jurnal Ekonomi Balance, Fakultas Ekonomi, Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar, Vol.5, No.1, Jan-Apr.2009, 1-10, jurnal-utuh-ok.pdf, http://fekonunismuh.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/jurnal-utuh-ok.pdf
    ROA, ROE, LDR, 2007-2009.

    Suparjo, Analisis Kinerja Perbankan, Studi Kasus pada BCA KCU Gang Tengah, Semarang, Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen, Vol.55, No.1, 2008, hal.18-32, 551081832.pdf, http://isjd.pdii.lipi.go.id/admin/jurnal/551081832.pdf
    BSC

    Rindu Rika Gamayuni, Rasio Keuangan sebagai Prediktor Kegagalan Perusahaan di Indonesia, Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen, Vol.3, No.1, Sept.2006, 15-38, JBM-September 2006.pdf, http://lemlit.unila.ac.id/file/arsip%202010./JBM/JBM-September%202006.pdf

    Aida Sari, Evaluasi Kepuasan Nasabah atas Layanan Perbankan Berbasis Mobile Banking Network, Studi Kasus pada BCA cabang Bandarlampung, Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen, Vol.3, No.1, Sept.2006, 61-72, , http://lemlit.unila.ac.id/file/arsip%202010./JBM/JBM-September%202006.pdf

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 4:00 PM on 2012/05/29 Permalink  

    The $10bn F1 is put on sale in Singapore in June 2012 by its global partner, the three keys logo company UBS, along with Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley

    By Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 29 May 2012, 16.00

    Financial societies may have been aware why in the world F-1 shares have to be offered initially in Singapore. During the worldwide financial system mayhem, the Government of Singapore Investment Corp. step in as a UBS shareholder to save UBS from a very huge loss in 2007.

    Read more to previous articles in pdf, Farewell to the Swiss Bank Secrecy Tradition and Principle, or in 1st url, or 2nd url.

    Singapore has been notorious to house Indonesian criminals and felonies  own corrupted money from Indonesian companies and Indonesian government bureaucrats. You should also have known that 80% of properties in Singapore, in terms of apartments, housing, condos, or the like, have been bought by the Indonesian people. Please verify this data with the HDB.

    The F-1 IPO

    Banks UBS and Goldman Sachs have been hired to lead F1’s IPO in Singapore that could value the business at up to $10 billion (6 billion pounds). Officials at the Asian bourse have approved the sale, which could raise between $2.5bn (€1.96bn) and $3bn for its private equity sponsor, CVC Capital Partners.

    CVC was seeking to cut its stake to 40% from 63.4%. Before the planned $3bn IPO took place, CVC Capital has sold a $1.6 billion stake in F1 to three investors including BlackRock, a source said on Tuesday (22.05.2012).The two other investors are asset manager Waddell & Reed and Norway’s Norges Bank Investment Management, the asset management unit of the Norwegian central bank, known as Norges Bank.

    The IPO, which is being managed by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS, has been expected for months and could value the entire business at around $10bn, including $7.2 billion of equity and $1.9 billion of debt. The F1 IPO is set to be priced before the end of June 2012 after the company and its bankers meet with investors and fund managers to gauge demand for the offering.

    F1’s IPO shall become Singapore’s biggest IPO since Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing’s Hutchison Port Holdings Trust raised $5.5 billion in early 2011. Another Southeast Asia listing, Malaysia’s Felda Global Ventures Holding, plans a $3 billion IPO this year 2012. Facebook Inc raised $16 billion last week in a record Internet IPO (W3 of May 2012).

    CVC bought Formula 1 for $1.7bn, but the investment ran into trouble when it was alleged in 2010 that Bayern LB banker Gerhard Gribkowsky took a bribe when selling the racing brand to the private equity firm.

    Sports magnate and face of F1 Bernie Ecclestone admitted in court as of November 2011 to paying Gribkowsky a $44m payment for selling the business, but denied any misdeed. CVC managing partner told a Munich court in January that his firm had no knowledge of the payments, labelling them a “breach of contract”.

    The Costs and Benefits of F-1

    Formula One, F1, is simply a company organising events of race cars all over the world. It has huge budgets for cars, developments, teams, logistics, tracks and many more. It is always interesting to see who is paying what to whom. Let’s name it: racing industries, aviation, beverages or chemicals, the constructors.

    F1 has been run in London by the 81-year-old Bernie Ecclestone with around 250-300 staff. It does not own its own circuits. It has commercial rights to the sport for the next 98 years and a brand that Briton Ecclestone has built up over the last four decades. In 2010, Sebastian Vettel became the youngest world champion in F1 history.

    Since 63.4% shares acquired by CVC, F1 has racked up a combined $200 million loss. It has a 3.3% rise in costs. The increase in the number of races boosted the overheads, which include transporting 40,000 glasses, 30,000 plates, 10,000 cut flowers, 5,500 magnums of champagne and 200 tons of tents to each event.

    About 4,000 people are served in F1’s hospitality area at every race and last year prices ranged up to $4,520 per person for a three-day ticket. More than 170 staff, including 65 local contractors, work on the television production.

    F1 has been financing its teams such as Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren upwards of $100 million per season to compete in its races around the globe. F1 flies six jumbo jets filled with cars and equipment to put on the race. Each of those planes costs $900,000 in fuel and charter costs.

    Each F1 car can carry up to 5 cameras, while 40 more manned cameras cover the circuit. A team of almost 70 video editors, producers and technicians put together the television feed and timing information. It all goes into one single feed, which is screened live in 110 countries by 65 different broadcasters.

    It took around $170 million to run a team in F1. Sponsorship typically provides around 60% of a team’s budget but this is increasingly harder to attain. Any race team should be prepared for race sanctioning fees, cancellation fees, lost revenues, less sponsors, sponsors cut spending on corporate hospitality, off-track battle of budgets is an equally important part of the season.

    The Resource Restriction Agreement (RRA) limits staff numbers, size of computer storage space and the amount of days cars can be tested on track. It excludes marketing costs and engine development which accounts for around $350m of annual spending. The engineering facilities improvement spent was £4.9m.

    Sponsorship of race cars and drivers is worth an estimated $1bn per annum and barely a centimetre of each car goes unadorned with logos. The industries sponsoring F1 have changed from tobacco to the pharmaceutical giants such as GlaxoSmithKline (nicotine replacement).

    The sponsor companies then include non-tobacco companies with well-known consumer brands with a particular emphasis on the automotive and fast-moving consumer goods sectors (Unipart, Parmalat, Gillette). Even names of sponsors who don’t operate in the business to consumer market: business support services, semiconductor suppliers and corporate financial services.

    In recent years, tobacco sponsorship has been declining. The only prominent tobacco sponsorship is Marlboro’s sponsorship of Ferrari. And this is only visible during races in territories where tobacco sponsorship is still permitted. The end of tobacco sponsorship hasn’t led to the expected dip in revenue to the teams.

    Tobacco sponsorship created many memorable colour schemes: the yellow and black of Jordan (Benson and Hedges), black and gold of Lotus (John Player Special) and the red and white of Ferrari (Marlboro). And then there was the British American Racing team, which arguably only existed to push the 555 and Lucky Strike Brands of its parent, British American Tobacco.

    Sponsorship activation, team, driver and on-site sponsorship, sponsorship of TV broadcasts and paddock club revenues, guest invitation, merchandising etc., trackside advertising, ticket sales, revenue from suppliers, off-car team sponsorship, customer engine supply, fees from track owners.


    References

    1. isportconnect.com, F1 economics – where does the money go and come from?
    2. f1india.org, Formula One ready to go public with IPO upto $10billion
    3. f1india.org, Hospitality sales at Formula 1 are in the red again
    4. f1india.org, F1 Expenditure and Profit 2010
    5. f1india.org, F1 Cost of a Melbourne Race
    6. 200402251346, bbc.co.uk, Motorsport Sponsorship guide
    7. 200706052340, cnn.com, Branded, 40 years of F1 sponsorship
    8. 200707120050, cnn.com, F1 sponsorship: a sponsor’s view
    9. 200709180000, cnn.com, Sponsorship, the big business behind F1
    10. 201004100342, cetak.kompas.com, PERBANKAN GLOBAL: AS Terus Tekan Swiss dan UBS
    11. 20100630, economywatch.com, Formula One industry
    12. 201008030800, telegraph.co.uk, David Coulthard: Michael Schumacher must do more than apologise to repair legacy
    13. 201008030937, telegraph.co.uk, Michael Schumacher ‘invited disaster’ in Budapest, says Sir Jackie Stewart
    14. 20100823, formula1.com, UBS and Formula 1™ announce Global Partnership
    15. 20100823, advfn.com, dowjones.com, UBS To Sponsor Formula 1 Racing From Singapore Grand Prix
    16. 20100823, espnf1.com, F1 signs sponsorship deal with UBS
    17. 20100823, imlsportsmarketing.co.uk, UBS signs global F1 sponsorship deal
    18. 20100823, sportbusiness.com, UBS signs global F1 sponsorship deal
    19. 20100823, sportspromedia.com, UBS sign US$200 million Formula One partnership
    20. 201008231627, bbc.co.uk, Formula One signs up UBS as ‘global partner’
    21. 201008231900, bloomberg.com, UBS Becomes Formula One Car Racing Sponsor as RBS Prepares to Pull Backing
    22. 201008231921, ft.com, UBS on the F1 starting grid
    23. 201008240645, telegraph.co.uk, UBS sticks by ‘you & us’ in Formula 1 sponsorship deal
    24. 201012030057, f1technical.net, Low Cost F1
    25. 201103221336, f1technical.net, How much does it cost to sponsor an F1 Team?
    26. 20120306, thejakartaglobe.com, UBS and JPMorgan Chase Forecast Major Investment Ahead for Indonesia
    27. 20120425, joesaward.wordpress.com, A Formula One IPO: pros and cons
    28. 20120425, yallaf1.com, reuters.com, More banks added to Formula 1 IPO line-up
    29. 20120521, realdeals.eu.com, F1 IPO gets green light
    30. 201205231224, currents.westlawbusiness.com, BlackRock, investors buy $1.6 billion stake in F1 – sources
    31. formula1.com, 2012 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    32. formula1.com, 2011 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    33. formula1.com, 2010 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    34. formula1.com, 2009 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    35. formula1.com, 2008 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    36. formula1.com, 2007 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    37. formula1.com, 2006 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    38. formula1.com, 2005 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    39. formula1.com, 2004 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    40. formula1.com, 2003 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    41. formula1.com, 2002 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    42. formula1.com, 2001 FIA Formula One World Championship™
    43. ubs.com, A Global Partner of Formula 1™
    44. ubs.com, Giving Back: UBS-INSEAD chart the rise of family philanthropy in Asia
    45. 201111270756, ubs.com, Welcome to UBS in Indonesia
    46. 201202232022, ubs.com, UBS in Indonesia: Products and Services, Contacts & Branches
    47. ubs.com, UBS in Indonesia
    48. 201204250928, joesaward.wordpress.com, The Street Talkers: The Sidewalk Talks over Formula One’s IPO

    http://www.isportconnect.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2317:f1-economics-where-does-the-money-go-and-come-from&catid=60:formula-one&Itemid=170

    F1 economics – where does the money go and come from?

    Sonja Kreye

    For people outside of the sports business industry – or let’s say sheer sports fans – it is sometimes strange to point out the value of sports. Especially in Formula One, a sport that obviously needs huge budgets for cars, developments, teams, logistics, tracks and many more, it is always interesting to see who is paying what to whom.

    According to “Formula Money”, the biggest share of F1’s revenues comes from team owner spending ($1,605.5 million). Unfortunately, there are no figures on how these spending developed, but it is obviously not hard to guess that this figure has increased. Not only because of team owners coming out of industries outside of racing, let’s say aviation, beverages or chemicals, but also because of the constructors being determined to become F1 world champion no matter what it will cost.

    Second position on the top ten list of revenues is on-car team sponsorship. In 2008, team sponsors spent $ 836.9 million  (source Formula Money). After a financially hard year in 2009, 2010 should have brought another increase in sponsorship for F1 with UBS and the banking sector returning to the sport.

    Race sanctioning fees accumulate to $ 403.5 million . With all the new tracks and markets integrated into Formula One, also this figure should have nothing but increased throughout the last years. TV rights sum up to $ 380 million , ticket sales bring a revenue of $ 290 million .

    For trackside advertising, sponsors were willing to pay another $171.7 million, while the activation of sponsorship including guest invitation, merchandising etc. brought a turnover of $209.3 million.

    Summing up all sponsorship related revenues, F1 generates $1,533.35 million  including team, driver and on-site sponsorship, sponsorship activation, sponsorship of TV broadcasts and paddock club revenues. Being almost a third of all accumulated revenues, it becomes clear that sponsorship is definitely an important factor in the financing of the sport.

    Another factor that should not be forgotten is the revenue that comes from suppliers. Tyre suppliers spent $72.8 million in 2008. The supplier off-car team sponsorship made up $ 58.85 million and the customer engine supply resulted in a turnover of $90 million. Big figures for companies that are sometimes only known in the OEM and automotive industry. (Source of all figures: Formula Money)

    There’s money to be spent and money to be made in F1. For worldwide brands and companies it is a perfect platform for global marketing.


    http://www.f1india.org/about-f1/budget-f1

    Formula One ready to go public with IPO upto $10billion

    The idea of floating Formula One has been around for more than a decade but there appears to be real momentum on this occasion to sell off as much as 30 percent of the company. Banks UBS and Goldman Sachs have been hired to lead an initial public offering that could value the business at up to $10 billion (6 billion pounds).

    Peter Brabeck, the chairman of Swiss food group Nestle, has been lined up to chair the company should the flotation proceed. The driving force is private equity firm CVC Capital Partners which has owned 63.4 percent of the business since 2006 and now plans to cash in. CVC is seeking to cut its stake to under 50 percent, a source close to the deal has said.

    Formula one 20 races are watched by more than 500 million television viewers, but details of its finances are harder to access. Formula One chief Bernie Ecclestone made a presentation to bank analysts last week at London’s plush Savoy Hotel and further financial details are expected to be published in coming weeks as part of efforts to woo investors.

    Revenue for the current season will reach $2 billion for the first time, according to a report by industry monitor Formula Money. Fees paid by tracks around the world to host races that bring glamour and exposure to cities are the largest part of that income at an estimated $700 million, exceeding TV income.

    Based in London and run by the 81-year-old Ecclestone, Formula One has only around 250-300 staff. It does not own its own circuits and it costs teams such as Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren upwards of $100 million per season to compete in its races around the globe. What Formula One Group does have are commercial rights to the sport for the next 98 years and a brand that Briton Ecclestone has built up over the last four decades.

    In an interview with Austrian newspaper Salzburger Nachrichten, Braback-Letmathe confirmed that progress towards the flotation was ongoing, and he was in line for a major role. “We intend to float F1 in Singapore soon,” said Braback-Letmathe. “Some roadshows and presentations have taken place already.

    “It’s true that I said I would be ready to chair the board in a non-operative function. If F1 goes public it will be important to have an independent chairman.” Braback-Letmathe added that Delta Topco was also aware that it would have to be ready for a post-Bernie Ecclestone future.

    “We all hope that Bernie stays healthy for a long time and continues. I am impressed by his efforts,” said the Austrian. “However, it is the duty of a board to secure the succession. At Nestle, I always made sure that any executive board member could be replaced within 24 hours. This would also apply to F1 when it becomes a public company. “We have to consider the future long-term, with new structures, new individuals, possibly both.”


    Hospitality sales at Formula 1 are in the red again

    Formula 1’s corporate hospitality operation Beta Holdings saw pre-tax losses treble to $5.2 million (£3.15 million), according to accounts for 2010. Despite the addition of new races in Canada and South Korea, revenues stalled as sponsors cut spending on corporate hospitality. F1 is majority owned by private equity firm CVC and the accounts reveal that it has racked up a combined $200 million loss since it was acquired in 2006.

    Beta Holdings’ turnover last year nudged up by just $3.2 million to $153.5 million, but this was not enough to compensate for a 3.3 per cent rise in costs. The increase in the number of races boosted the overheads, which include transporting 40,000 glasses, 30,000 plates, 10,000 cut flowers, 5,500 magnums of champagne and 200 tons of tents to each event.

    About 4,000 people are served in F1’s hospitality area at every race and last year prices ranged up to $4,520 per person for a three-day ticket. Beta Holdings financial director Duncan Llowarch said: ‘The prevailing economic conditions created a difficult environment for hospitality sales.’

    In an attempt to drive revenue, ticket prices have been increased by as much as 12 per cent in 2011. CVC used a $285 million loan from Royal Bank of Scotland to buy the business and the debt incurs interest of Libor – the rate at which banks lend to each other – plus between one per cent and 3.5 per cent.

    A fall in the interbank rate meant that Beta Holdings’ interest payments dropped by $2 million to $5.4 million last year and it paid off $16.2 million of the total loan leaving $182.8 million outstanding. Meanwhile, F1 chief executive Bernie Ecclestone has warned that last month’s earthquake in Japan could affect the Grand Prix due to be held there in October.

    The Suzuka track 500 miles south-west of the epicentre has not been damaged, but there are fears that ticket sales could be jeopardised as a result of the disaster. Last year 100,000 spectators attended the race and ticket sales are crucial since they cover the annual race hosting fee estimated at $48.4 million by Formula 1 trade guide Formula Money. An estimated $40 million in revenue has already been lost this year due to the cancellation of the Bahrain Grand Prix as a result of the civil uprising in the Gulf state.


    F1 Expenditure and Profit 2010

    It took around $170 million to run a team in F1. Most of the money for the team come from sponsorship. F1 2010 season was one of the most exciting one in the history of F1 with 4 drivers in contention for World championship title raced to the final lap of final race in Abu Dhabi and the title being grabbed by the young Sebastian Vettel making him the youngest world champion in F1 history.

    This allowed injecting 7million increase in the viewership taking a total of 527million viewers world wide. In the four decades of F1 Racing, this will be first season which will see 5 world champion fighting for another title with some others likes of Felipe Massa, Mark Webber equally clinching their hands to grab their first.

    According to F1’s industry monitor Formula Money, the teams’ total sponsorship has increased by 9.6% to $831m in 2011. It is a world away from last year when they started the season with $705m in sponsorship, 14% less than they had in 2009. It represented the biggest fall in the past five years and, remarkably, it came despite the number of teams rising from 10 to 12 as newcomers Hispania, Team Lotus and Virgin joined the grid.

    However, it soon became clear that several teams would be vying for the title in 2010 and sponsors realised that this would fuel an increase in viewing figures. It led to a steady stream of deals signed in 2010 including $8m in sponsorship of Mercedes GP from British software company Autonomy and a further $8m which Lotus received from Malaysian telecoms firm Maxis. This upswing continued over the winter break.

    The biggest of this year’s new sponsors is the Lotus car company which has paid around $40m to the Renault team to become its new title sponsor. It means that for the first time F1 will have two teams with Lotus branding this year and it heralds a return of sorts for car manufacturers.

    One of the biggest new deals after Lotus is the sponsorship of Red Bull Racing by Nissan’s luxury Infiniti brand. This will see its logos appear on the Red Bull cars alongside those of the team’s engine supplier Renault and it will cost Infiniti around $10m annually. The final new manufacturer signing in F1 this year is Russian sports car maker Marussia which bought into Virgin Racing as the 2010 season was coming to a close.

    The biggest loser is Williams which has parted with an estimated 40.8% of its sponsorship from 2010. It was the team’s biggest fall in the past decade and in total it lost an estimated $46.5m from six brands including German insurer Allianz, a Williams sponsor since 2001, and UK government-owned bank Royal Bank of Scotland, which was alone paying $20m to the team annually.

    In 2011, Williams also become the first F1 team to be publicly traded and listed on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange. It is also set to lose its engineering director Patrick Head who is expected to retire this year. Earlier this month he floated an 14.5% stake in the team on the Frankfurt stock exchange giving himself a £31m payout before he leaves.

    This year Williams has dropped highly-rated German driver Nico Hulkenberg in favour of Venezuelan Pastor Maldonado who brings with him an estimated $16m of sponsorship from local businesses including oil company PDVSA. It takes the team’s sponsorship tally to $44m but puts most of its eggs in just a few baskets as the float prospectus revealed that Williams’ income from prize money and its three largest sponsorship agreements “represent between 80% and 90% of the group’s contracted income.”

    Sponsorship typically provides around 60% of a team’s budget but this is increasingly harder to attain. When companies cut their marketing budgets it made them look even harder at the returns they were getting from sponsorship. So whilst the budgets of the best-performing teams ticked over, it became even harder for the back markers to sign sponsors. This has led to the funding gulf between the top and bottom of the grid growing ever wider.

    The top three outfits last year – Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren – together pull in over half of the teams’ total sponsorship revenues. HRT, which finished in penultimate place last year, is believed to have less than a million dollars of sponsorship committed so far this year. Remarkably this is nearly 1,000 times smaller than the income of F1’s biggest sponsorship earner Ferrari. Instead of getting most of its money from sponsors, HRT is relying on payments from drivers and its owner Spanish businessman José Ramón Carabante.

    To prevent teams from hitting the wall if owners decided to pull the plug on funding the Resource Restriction Agreement (RRA) was introduced. This limits areas such as staff numbers, size of computer storage space and the amount of days cars can be tested on track. However, there are significant exclusions from it such as marketing costs and engine development which accounts for around $350m of annual spending. They may make all the difference.

    The RRA was introduced in 2009 but this didn’t stop Red Bull Racing’s costs increasing 8.8% to £156.9m in its bid to win the championship. To maximise lead time, development work on F1 cars is done the year before they are introduced and in 2009 Red Bull Racing’s spending on research and development increased 18.8% to £57.2m. It was far from the only focus of the team’s investment drive as it also spent £4.9m on improving its engineering facilities and although staff numbers remained stable at 592 their total pay increased 21.9% to £45.9m.

    To cover the increase in costs Dietrich Mateschitz, co-founder of the Red Bull energy drinks company which owns the team, agreed to boost investment in F1 by 29.5% to £107m. It gave the team victory and proved that although the championship seems to be decided on track the off-track battle of budgets is an equally important part of the season.


    F1 Cost of a Melbourne Race

    Each year Ecclestone’s company flies six jumbo jets filled with cars and equipment to Melbourne to put on the race. Each of those planes costs $900,000 in fuel and charter costs. That’s more than $5.4 million that Bernie picks up the bill for. One of those planes delivers formula one’s outside broadcast facility, which takes up the entire hold of a Boeing 747 freight plane. More than 170 staff, including 65 local contractors, work on the television production.

    Each formula one car can carry up to five cameras, while 40 more manned cameras cover the circuit. A team of almost 70 video editors, producers and technicians put together the television feed and timing information. It all goes into one single feed, which is screened live in 110 countries by 65 different broadcasters.

    From five minutes before the start until the podium presentation, more than 500 million people are seeing that live at the same time. When you see the name Melbourne on screen, 500 million people see the name Melbourne. On the other hand, since Melbourne poached the Australian Grand Prix from Adelaide 15 years ago, the race has run up accumulated losses of £156million, while the total licence fee paid to Ecclestone, and his companies totals at least £140m.

    In 2010, the Victorian state government here in Melbourne paid £30.74m to cover the event’s losses, including an annual race fee estimated to be more than half that amount to Ecclestone’s company. Albert Park Grand Prix Circuit, Melbourne, Australia license expires in 2015 while Bernie Ecclestone Team tries to extent the contract till 2020 with 5 year extension option till 2025.


    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/formula_one/sponsorship_guide/default.stm

    Motorsport Sponsorship guide

    Last Updated: Wednesday, 25 February, 2004, 13:46 GMT

    Introduction

    Companies pay vast sums of money to have their brands on Formula One cars. But the amount they pay – and what they get for it – varies hugely depending on the success of the team and the positioning of the sponsor’s name on the cars. Teams get 80-85% of their total income from sponsorship; the rest comes from TV revenue and prize money through F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone’s F1 Management company.

    Trade link-ups – $1-3m

    These companies are less interested in having their names in prominent positions on the car than in being able to associate themselves with the image of a team. They are usually suppliers to industry – either high-tech or engineering – and have small spaces in parts of the car that are less highly visible, like the side of the rear wing, or the wing mirrors.

    Co-sponsor – $3-15m

    Some of these second-string backers want the kudos of being linked with a sport with a high-tech, ultra-modern image. These are usually engineering and technology companies. Others are more interested in the exposure and hospitality benefits being involved in F1 can provide. Again, the amount they pay depends on exposure and location on the car and the status of the team.

    Title sponsor – $15-50m

    For this sort of money, a company would have its brand included in the official title of the team – ie West McLaren Mercedes – and be positioned on all the highest-profile parts of the car which get most TV exposure. A company like West or Marlboro might pay up to $50m to have this sort of link with McLaren or Ferrari, whereas a middle ranking team could expect less than half that, and a back-of-the grid outfit half as much again.


    http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/06/01/sponsors.united/index.html?eref

    Branded, 40 years of F1 sponsorship

    POSTED: 1540 GMT (2340 HKT), June 5, 2007


    Bruno Senna driving the Lotus car of his father, Ayrton. Lotus was a pioneer of Formula 1 sponsorship.

    LONDON, England (CNN) — Next year marks the 40th anniversary of sponsorship in Formula 1. Before 1968 cars were decorated with colour schemes representing national flags with only discreet hood badges identifying the manufacturers (though Honda and Lotus blazed a trail by painting their names on their cars in 1966).

    Now sponsorship of cars and drivers is worth an estimated $1bn per annum and barely a centimetre of each car goes unadorned with logos. The biggest change in recent years has been the decline in tobacco sponsorship. Ever since Lotus ran out in the colours of the hand-rolling tobacco, Gold Leaf — in 1968 — tobacco and Formula 1 have had a long and controversial relationship.

    Tobacco sponsorship created many memorable colour schemes: the yellow and black of Jordan (Benson and Hedges), black and gold of Lotus (John Player Special) and the red and white of Ferrari (Marlboro). And then there was the British American Racing team, which arguably only existed to push the 555 and Lucky Strike Brands of its parent, British American Tobacco.

    Now the only prominent tobacco sponsorship is Marlboro’s sponsorship of Ferrari. And this is only visible during races in territories where tobacco sponsorship is still permitted. The end of tobacco sponsorship hasn’t led to the expected dip in revenue to the teams. Indeed many companies who might not previously have considered Formula 1 sponsorship — because of the tobacco link — have come on board, including pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline which promoted its NiQuitin nicotine replacement therapy products with the Williams F1 team.

    The type of sponsor involved with F1 has changed dramatically. In the past many non-tobacco sponsors were well-known consumer brands with a particular emphasis on the automotive and fast-moving consumer goods sectors (Unipart, Parmalat, Gillette). Now you are as likely to see names of sponsors who don’t operate in the business to consumer market: business support services, semiconductor suppliers and corporate financial services.

    Below is a list of 2007 constructors and a list of their main sponsors. This is not an exhaustive list — it does not include all the official suppliers and promotional partners — but one that represents all the logos you are likely to see on the cars, overalls and helmets of the drivers. It goes to show just how Formula 1 has changed in these 40 years.

    BMW SAUBER

    1. Petronas — petrochemicals (Malaysia)
    2. Intel — semiconductors (United States)
    3. DuPont — chemicals (United States)
    4. Credit Suisse — financial services (Switzerland)
    5. Dell — computers (United States)
    6. Puma — sportswear (Germany)
    7. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)

    FERRARI

    1. FIAT — automobiles, FIAT is Ferrari’s parent company (Italy)
    2. Shell — petrochemicals (Netherlands/UK)
    3. Alice — telecommunications (Italy)
    4. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    5. AMD — semiconductors (United States)
    6. Martini — wines and spirits (Italy)
    7. Acer — computers (Taiwan)
    8. Mubadala Development — multi-portfolio investment (Abu Dhabi)

    HONDA

    Honda’s “earth car” livery leaves little space for sponsorship logos. But the following brands are Honda’s “team partners”:

    1. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    2. Celerant — consulting (United Kingdom)
    3. Eneos — petrochemicals (Japan)
    4. Fila — sportswear (Italy)
    5. Gatorade — a soft drink brand of PepsiCo (United States)
    6. NGK — automotive (Japan)
    7. NTN — engineering (Japan)
    8. Ray Ban — a sunglasses brand of Luxottica Group (Italy)
    9. Seiko — watches (Japan)
    10. Universal Music Group — music brand of Vivendi (France)

    McLAREN MERCEDES

    1. Vodafone — telecommunications (United Kingdom)
    2. Santander — financial services (Spain)
    3. ExxonMobil — petrochemicals (United States)
    4. Johnnie Walker — whisky brand of Diageo (United Kingdom)
    5. Henkel — adhesives (Germany)
    6. Hilton — hotel group (United States)
    7. Aigo — consumer electronics (China)
    8. Hugo Boss — fashion (Germany)
    9. Tag Heuer — watch brand of LVMH (France)
    10. Mutua Madrilena — insurance (Spain)

    RED BULL

    1. Red Bull — soft drinks (Austria)
    2. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    3. Metro — newspapers (Luxembourg)
    4. Quehenberger — logistics (Austria)
    5. Leica — cameras (Germany)
    6. UGS — US-based software division of Siemens (Germany)
    7. Renault — automobiles (France)
    8. Hangar-7 — Red Bull’s aerobatic concerns (Austria)
    9. Rauch — soft drinks (Austria)
    10. Mac Tools — automotive tools (United States)

    RENAULT

    1. ING — financial services (Netherlands)
    2. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    3. Elf — lubricants brand of Total (France)
    4. Hanjin — shipping (Korea)
    5. Chronotech — watches (Italy)

    SPYKER

    1. Etihad — airline (Abu Dhabi)
    2. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    3. Aldar — real estate (Abu Dhabi)
    4. Medion — consumer electronics (Germany)
    5. Superfund — hedge fund (Monaco)
    6. McGregor — fashion (Netherlands)
    7. Lease Plan — fleet management (Netherlands)
    8. Exact Software — corporate software (Netherlands)
    9. Rhino’s — soft drinks (Germany)

    SUPER AGURI

    1. SS United — petrochemicals (Japan)
    2. Honda — automobiles (Japan)
    3. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    4. Samantha Kingz — fashion, brand of Samantha Thavasa (Japan)
    5. NGK — automotive (Japan)
    6. Eneos — petrochemicals (Japan)
    7. Seiko — watches (Japan)
    8. Autobacs — retail automotive (Japan)

    TORO ROSSO

    1. Red Bull — soft drinks (Austria)
    2. Hangar-7 — Red Bull’s aerobatic concern (Austria)
    3. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    4. Amik — chemicals (Italy)
    5. Avus — automotive (Spain)
    6. Volkswagen — automobiles (Germany)
    7. USAG — automotive (Italy)
    8. Magneti Marelli — automotive (Italy)

    TOYOTA

    1. Panasonic — consumer electronics (Japan)
    2. Denso — automotive (Japan)
    3. Bridgestone — tires (Japan)
    4. Ebbon-Dacs — business support (United Kingdom)
    5. Kingfisher Airlines — airline, division of brewer (India)
    6. EMC — information technology (United States)
    7. KDDI — telecommunications (Japan)
    8. Time Inc. — magazines, division of TimeWarner (United States)
    9. BMC Software — corporate software (United States)

    WILLIAMS

    1. AT&T — telecommunications (United States)
    2. RBS — financial services (United Kindgdom)
    3. Lenovo — computers (China)
    4. Petrobras — petrochemicals (Brazil)
    5. Oris — watches (Switzerland)
    6. Reuters — news and financial information (United Kingdom)
    7. Hamleys — retail, dividion of Baugur (Iceland)
    8. Allianz — financial services (Germany)
    9. Oris — watches (Switzerland)
    10. Randstad — human resources (Netherlands)

    http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/07/12/why.sponsor/index.html

    F1 sponsorship: a sponsor’s view

    by James Snodgrass for CNN
    July 12, 2007 — Updated 1650 GMT (0050 HKT)

    Story Highlights

    1. Formula 1 seen as a young and dynamic sponsorship opportunity
    2. Global reach of the sport is seen as an advantage
    3. Corporate hospitality helps Johnnie Walker get closer to its customers


    Lewis Hamilton’s helmet bears the “Striding Man”, symbol of Johnnie Walker for nearly 100 years


    The Johnnie Walker logotype also adorns the sides of the McLaren Mercedes racers

    LONDON, England (CNN) — In 1968 the Lotus Formula 1 team broke new ground. Rather than racing in a livery related to national flags or emblems, the team took to the circuit with cars in the color-scheme — and wearing the logo of — Imperial Tobacco’s Gold Leaf brand. Since then Formula 1 and sponsorship have walked hand-in-hand, sponsorship money being a significant — and in many case major — source of revenue. But what do sponsors get out of Formula 1?

    Johnnie Walker, a Scotch whisky brand of Diageo, is in its third season of sponsoring the McLaren Mercedes team. Ben Anderson is Johnnie Walker’s Global Brand Director: “Specifically for us we’re looking at doing two things. At a brand level we’re trying continually to develop the equity in our brand image. And that’s by getting involved with international, stylish events like Formula 1.

    “And secondly it’s a fantastic vehicle for us to get our responsible drinking message across. When we went into Formula 1 it was on those two bases.” Johnnie Walker is the world’s best-selling Scotch whisky (and the world’s second-best selling whisky after the Irish whiskey, Jameson). Sold in 180 countries and consumed at a rate of 154 glasses per second (or five bottles per second; nearly 160 million bottles per annum), it is a truly global proposition.

    “You can imagine that when we wanted to get into a sponsorship property we needed something that gave us the global scale and global reach and Formula 1 was really the only possible sporting event that we could get this reach,” continues Anderson “it’s a huge annual event.”

    With such a global presence, Johnnie Walker doesn’t need Formula 1 to grab brand awareness. Rather it piggybacks on Formula 1’s appeal — and the brand appeal of McLaren Mercedes in particular — to position itself as a youthful and dynamic proposition.

    “In terms of which team you go for we analyzed the teams and there was really only one potentially for us to get involved with and that was McLaren,” says Anderson, “because we share so many similar characteristics. Both our teams are successful. Since they entered Formula 1, 41 years ago, no team has won more races than McLaren.

    “We’re the best and biggest global Scotch player, we’ve won more awards than any other Scotch whisky. So there’s a similarity there. Both brands are innovative. That fit of values — these brands have a kind of status — Mercedes, McLaren, Johnnie Walker.” But it’s not just about presenting the brand.

    Formula 1 offers Johnnie Walker a chance to entertain its clients in a unique way. “Ron Dennis says that Formula 1 is one of the last gladiatorial sports — like chariot racing,” says Anderson, “it’s exciting, it’s something you can get close to and experience in a really authentic way. And we found that it’s a great asset to our corporate entertaining calendar.

    “We tend to take customers from specific markets to specific races, both in seeing what the brand looks like at its best in a contemporary, fashionable, international setting such as Formula 1 races are. Be they in Monaco, Sao Paolo or Shanghai, having deeper relationships with our customers is one of the benefits we get out of it.”

    Formula 1 isn’t Johnnie Walker’s only sporting sponsorship. It also sponsors golf — a sport that –Tiger Woods aside — is rarely associated with youth and dynamism. But while its perception in Europe is one of “a walk in the country ruined”, in the Asia-Pacific market it has the associated glamour and spirit of Formula 1.

    The Johnnie Walker classic has run in Asia for 17 years now and Johnnie Walker also sponsors the Championship at Gleneagles in Scotland (Gleneagles is also a Diageo property). Anderson relates a piece of Gleneagles trivia: its golf course was designed by a descendant of Johnnie Walker.

    Key to the brand message that Johnnie Walker — and Diageo — is trying to get across is responsible drinking. Diageo runs worldwide campaigns on this message, including the “Drink Aware” campaign in the UK and “Think B4U Drink” campaign in Australia. But aren’t motor sports and drink strange bedfellows?

    “Responsible drinking and Formula 1: a lot of people say, can you explain that to me for a second?” says Anderson, “I’m always delighted to answer that particular question because responsible drinking is a critical part of Diageo’s message.” The message has been reinforced by having formula McLaren world champion, Mika Hakkinen, work as a taxi driver at various Grands Prix.

    “Recently I happened to be in Monaco with [Hakkinen]. ‘Why are you driving a taxi promoting responsible drinking?’ people ask. The very fact that you’re putting that question into people’s minds is unbelievably powerful.” And then when you explain that a Formula 1 driver is a great athlete who is in control, but that you cannot be in control if you’re drinking and driving. It’s a powerful message that really resonates with consumers.

    “If governments do responsible drinking messages, it’s probably ignored to be honest, if companies do it, it’s less impactful. But Mika is still a hero amongst many young people it really does resonate with them and it changes their behavior and their attitude to something which is critical to Johnnie Walker, to Diageo and to me.”


    http://edition.cnn.com/2007/SPORT/09/18/behind.sponsorship/index.html

    Sponsorship, the big business behind F1

    by Robert-Jan Bartunek for CNN, September 18, 2007 — Updated 1600 GMT (0000 HKT)

    Story Highlights

    1. Majority of teams’ $2.5 billion budget generated from sponsorship
    2. F1 Paddock Club is a unique networking opportunity for senior executives
    3. Drivers reap the benefit of increased sponsorship in the form of higher salaries

    LONDON, England (CNN) — Before the late 1960s Formula 1 was a quite different sport. The first thing that a casual observer would notice — looking at pictures from this era — is that the cars were void of any sponsorship. Semiconductor makers Intel and AMD slug it out on the racetrack and in the market place.

    Racing legends Juan Manuel Fangio, Jack Brabham and their contemporaries would lap the circuits of the Formula 1 Championship without branded baseball hats and overalls, without any stickers on their cars or without having to attend events to keep their sponsors happy. Towards the end of the 1960s, engine manufacturers began to realize the potential of advertising on their cars, and started to increase the size of their own logos.

    It wasn’t until 1968 that the first corporate sponsor made it onto a Formula 1 car, when the championship-winning Lotus team introduced the logo of Imperial Tobacco’s Gold Leaf brand on the side of their cars. Thereafter, Formula 1 and sponsorship became inseparable. While the drivers and the teams would still continue to battle it out on the track, Formula 1 has become as much about the business as about the racing.

    Today, the combined budget of all 11 teams is said to be in excess of $2.5 billion and the largest portion of this money is provided for by sponsors. Repeated market research has revealed that consumers consider Formula 1 “sophisticated, dynamic and prestigious”. Some of the larger sponsors commit hundreds of millions, over several years, to associate their brands with these appealing characteristics.

    The question remains, what exactly sponsors receive in return for investing such large sums. Obviously, the larger sponsors will receive a good size logo on a visible spot of the car or even become title sponsors such as ING with Renault or AT&T with Williams. Good television coverage has the potential to create outstanding results as the sport is watched by between five and seven billion people every year, providing work for an army of 10000 accredited journalists.

    In 2005, the total advertising value of Formula 1 has been estimated at $5.2 billion or $0.74 per viewer. But what are the benefits apart from that fleeting glimpse of a logo when the car roars past the grandstands at 250 mph? Clearly sponsorship is about more than visibility of a logo.

    Modern sponsorship contracts in Formula 1 are tailored to the needs of both the sponsor and the team. This often includes activities and promotions outside of the Formula 1 World Championship calendar. Melissa Berry, marketing manager for financial and news wire service Reuters, a sponsor of the Williams F1 Team explains: “Our sponsorship contract with Williams F1 allows us access to the team’s drivers to help promote our brand and our business.

    “Indeed, Williams F1 drivers have played a part in promoting Reuters products over the past few years. We also have the rights to use Williams F1 imagery to enhance our marketing communications materials and customer events.” Sponsoring a Formula 1 team also gives a company the possibility to tap into a vast network of potential customers among its fellow sponsors, as the sport has already attracted some very strong brands from various different sectors.

    Rival semiconductor manufacturers Intel and AMD sponsor BMW Sauber and Ferrari respectively. And other sponsors include drinks conglomerates Pernod Ricard and Diageo, and telecommunications giants Vodafone and AT&T. This gives an unrivalled networking opportunity for blue chip companies.

    Where else but at Grands Prix can senior executives of consumer electronics giants casually rub shoulders with hedge fund managers and the bosses of IT firms? This opportunity to network and exchange business ideas is a benefit of sponsoring a Formula 1 team not to be overlooked

    Reuters’ contract with the Williams F1 team has delivered just that, says Berry: “The team boasts the strongest stable of global business brands as sponsors, some of which are also our key customers or business partners — for example RBS, Allianz, Accenture and Lenovo. “The Williams F1 Paddock Club plays host to many senior executives from these companies over the course of a season and this can provide a platform for valuable business discussions or introductions.”

    For the drivers this means that apart from having to deliver during the race, they also have to attend corporate events of their sponsors and appear in their adverts. Hence we see Alonso and Hamilton looking implausibly chummy in commercials for Spanish bank Santander. While seen as distracting by some, it is something the top drivers cannot afford to do without. Without sponsorship revenue a driver is worthless to his team, as Christijan Albers found to his cost when he failed to bring in the promised sponsorship to Spyker.

    Juan Manuel Fangio and Jack Brabham competed in an era without commercial exposure — and without anything like the financial reward. Thanks to sponsorship deals today’s drivers like Kimi Raikkonen and Fernando Alonso reap the benefits of their commercial exposure in the form of much higher salaries.


    http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2010/04/10/03420546/as.terus.tekan.swiss.dan.ubs.

    PERBANKAN GLOBAL: AS Terus Tekan Swiss dan UBS

    Sabtu, 10 April 2010 | 03:42 WIB

    Kisah tentang apa saja yang terjadi ketika krisis global melanda masih terus bermunculan. Kali ini kisahnya melibatkan bank terbesar Swiss. AS memaksa UBS mengungkapkan warga AS penghindar pajak. Padahal, kerahasiaan perbankan adalah tradisi kuat Swiss. Setelah bangkrutnya Lehman Brothers pada September 2008, UBS bergetar juga.

    UBS memiliki pegawai dengan jumlah tiga kali lipat lebih besar dari Lehman. Setelah krisis, UBS pun dipaksa menghapusbukukan piutang senilai 50 miliar dollar AS selama periode sulit itu. Para investor bernapas lega ketika Pemerintah Swiss akhirnya memutuskan untuk menolong UBS pada 16 Oktober 2008. Akan tetapi, walaupun telah ditolong, UBS berpotensi menuai krisis dari sisi lain.

    Satu hari setelah dana talangan dikucurkan kepada UBS, para eksekutif puncak bank itu dipanggil untuk bertemu dengan para petinggi AS di New York. Mereka tengah melakukan penyelidikan terhadap berbagai macam kecurangan pajak yang dilakukan warga AS, yang menjadi klien UBS.

    Delegasi UBS ketika itu dipimpin Markus Diethelm. Mereka tiba dengan membawa hasil penyelidikan soal kecurangan pajak. Ketika itu, rencana UBS sangat sederhana, mengakui kesalahan, menyelesaikannya, dan kasus pun selesai. Akan tetapi, yang terjadi adalah sebaliknya.

    Kevin Downing, seorang jaksa dari Departemen Kehakiman AS Divisi Perpajakan, telah menyelidiki UBS sejak 2008. Jaksa ini menginginkan UBS membeberkan nama-nama para penghindar pajak dari AS sebagai kompensasi atas penyelesaian masalah itu. Tentu saja hal itu membuat UBS berada pada posisi sulit.

    Selama berabad-abad, perbankan Swiss selalu ketat menjaga rahasia nasabahnya. Posisi UBS sudah lemah ketika krisis terjadi. Dalam pertemuan itu sudah jelas benar bahwa tanpa pembeberan nama-nama nasabah, masalah tidak selesai. Konfrontasi itu juga mendesak UBS ke tepi jurang.

    Ketika bank itu sepakat untuk membayar sebesar 780 juta dollar AS dan menyerahkan nama-nama para penghindar pajak, kerusakannya masih saja besar dan memengaruhi operasi divisi wealth management UBS. Menurut data Departemen Kehakiman AS, UBS telah membantu 52.000 warga AS menyembunyikan miliaran dollar AS berupa hasil penggelapan pajak yang disembunyikan di perbankan Swiss periode 2000 hingga 2007.

    Para bankir UBS juga gencar menawarkan jasanya kepada para nasabah di AS. Setidaknya tercatat ada 3.800 perjalanan bisnis UBS ke AS untuk mengunjungi nasabah pada tahun 2000 saja. Penyerahan data nasabah UBS kepada Pemerintah AS merupakan hal yang mungkin dilakukan.

    Landasan hukumnya adalah kesepakatan tentang kerja sama soal perpajakan antara AS dan Swiss. Investigasi lain juga dilakukan Pengawas Pasar Modal AS (SEC). SEC menuduh unit UBS di AS t melanggar undang-undang pasar modal AS. Ketika Departemen Kehakiman ikut campur, masalahnya meluas menjadi penyelidikan kriminal perbankan.

    Pengawas perbankan Swiss pun sadar. Otoritas AS menahan Martin Liechti, Kepala UBS cabang Zurich, karena melakukan bisnis lintas batas. Selain itu, Brandley Birkenfeld, mantan penasihat keuangan UBS, mengakui telah menyelundupkan berlian di tube pasta gigi untuk kepentingan nasabah.

    Untuk mengatasi masalah penyerahan data nasabah tersebut, sempat timbul wacana untuk menggunakan Notrecht, yaitu hukum darurat Jerman yang memperbolehkan Pemerintah Swiss melakukan campur tangan untuk menghindari penyerahan data serta menolong UBS.

    Tekan terus

    Sebenarnya, apakah Departemen Kehakiman AS benar-benar akan menarik pemicu? Apakah mereka akan mengambil risiko menjatuhkan bank yang pegawainya tiga kali lipat dari Lehman dan sekitar 27.000 pegawai di UBS AS? Tidak ada yang mengetahui pasti hal ini. Akan tetapi, Swiss telah memutuskan untuk tidak mengambil risiko.

    Dalam suatu malam 18 Februari 2009, Pemerintah Swiss memutuskan untuk memberi lagi talangan 780 juta dollar AS. Namun, yang lebih sakit lagi, ada keputusan AS agar UBS menyerahkan sekitar 280 nama warga AS yang dipandang sebagai penghindar pajak serius. Keputusan ini diambil dengan restu Pemerintah Swiss.

    Satu hari setelah penyerahan nama-nama itu, Lembaga Penerimaan Internal AS mengejutkan lagi Pemerintah Swiss. Mereka meminta UBS menyerahkan 52.000 nama nasabah! Swiss telah gagal menyelesaikan masalah kriminal UBS di luar persidangan. Namun demikian, hingga kini tekanan terhadap tradisi perbankan Swiss terus berlanjut. (reuters/joe)


    http://www.economywatch.com/world-industries/formula-one/

    Formula One industry

    By: EconomyWatch   Date: 30 June 2010

    Formula One is a huge global sport estimated to be worth $4 billion annually. With the commercial rights by themselves generating a yearly revenue of $1 billion. With an audience base of 600 million viewers, it isn’t hard to understand why. It’s made stars of the likes of Michael Schumacher, Lewis Hamilton, Ayrton Senna and of course made Ferrari a house hold name.

    Hundreds of multinational companies around the world have wished to become affiliated with these names to increase the appeal of their brand and global recognition. Even in retirement, F1 stars are still attractive to sponsors, with Nigel Mansell (retired for fifteen years) recently appearing in a car insurance advertisement in the UK for price comparison website Money Supermarket.

    The beginnings

    Originally Formula One was predominantly the arena of rich aristocrats, such as Enzo Ferrari, who would indulge themselves in their passion for racing. This was the age of no seat belts and no sponsor logos. The sports only revenue was from the occasional TV spot and mainly ticket sales at the event which each team negotiated on an individual basis with track owners.

    Then, in 1968 Lotus boss Colin Chapman started a revolution by arranging a sponsorship agreement Gold Leaf cigarettes, for his Lotus F1 cars to carry the sponsor logos and change their traditional British racing green colours to Gold and red. It wasn’t long before other teams were emulating Chapman’s initiative, and upon the arrival of the 1970s, it was difficult not to find a car with a sponsor’s logo on it.

    A certain Mr Bernard Ecclestone was in the right place at the right time. Having made a significant amount from various business deals during the 1950s and 1960s, Mr Ecclestone was a wealthy man, wealthy enough to buy the Brabham team in 1971. Steadily Ecclestone built up the team to return them to winning ways by the end of the 1970s making him a well respected figure in the F1 community, and also highly influential resulting in him being elected the leader of the Formula One Constructors Assocation (FOCA) in 1978.

    Ecclestone suggested that the teams group together to negotiate revenue from tracks, having previously negotiated their appearance money individually. Track owners were offered a take it or leave it package, forcing them to surrender all track side advertising space to FOCA. However, the sports governing body FISA were not prepared to surrender power of the sport to the increasingly powerful Ecclestone, which resulted in years of conflict between the parties, with FISA threatening to set up a breakaway series.

    Eventually FISA gave in, and although they maintained control over the sporting regulations, crucially FOCA had acquired responsibility of negotiating and distributing television revenue. This began the era of big money, with increasing TV audiences together with Ecclestone’s astute business mind resulting in the sport now being broadcast in 128 different countries and bringing in a global audience of nearly 600 million viewers.

    Continued expansion

    This would not have been possible without expansion to none traditional Motorsport countries which continues to this day.

    Max Mosley was given responsibility of overseeing this in 1990 and the sport now visits 19 different countries a year, with Bahrain, China, Korea, India, Singapore and The United Arab Emirates being the most recent new additions to the F1 calendar, all being added in the past six years.

    This opens the sport up to an even bigger audience, making the sport even more attractive to any company that should wish to become affiliated with it.

    Formula One’s financial peak

    Formula One reached its financial peak between 1998 and 2002, with seven different manufacturers being involved in the sport for the 2002 season, each investing upwards of $100 million. Toyota were the biggest spenders, with rumours suggesting they spent upwards of $445 million per year.

    Money continued to be ploughed into the sport from the ever expanding audience base, with TV revenue and ticket prices being distributed to the teams in the form of prize money for championship position, with this estimated to have been a pot worth $2.9 billion in 2006.

    Formula One’s adaptation to the financial crash

    During the 2002 season, F1 entered an era of Schumacher and Ferrari domination, and TV audiences and ticket prices suffered. This combined with the problems in the global financial crisis following September 11th resulted in a period of decline. Big manufacturers like Ferrari and Toyota continued to plough money into the sport and eventually smaller privateer companies such as Jordan Grand Prix, couldn’t keep up and their performance suffered.

    Without performance, there is was less prize money and hence fewer sponsors wishing to become affiliated with the teams. Between 2002 and 2008, five separate privateer teams failed in their attempts to remain in operation reducing the number of starters to twenty for the 2008 season (two of which were additional cars fielded by Red Bull).

    Of these twenty cars, twelve were part of a manufacturer run team. Then came the credit crunch and the car buying market was critically hit and expenditure on Formula One became difficult to justify amid mass redundancies.

    This resulted in the withdrawal of BMW, Toyota and Honda, which would of reduced the field to just 14 if it hadn’t been for the efforts of Bernie Ecclestone and the newly formed FOTA (Formula One Teams Association) who rescued most of the manufacturer teams from collapse (Honda racing became Brawn GP) and set about reducing the cost of participation to make smaller teams more competitive.

    A new selection process to encourage new teams to enter was initiated by the sports government body (now the FIA) which resulted in the establishment of Virgin Racing, Hispania racing and the return of Lotus.

    The future

    The sport continues to get itself embroiled in controversy and political disputes, with Ferrari recently having a highly public dispute with the FIA over their alleged use of team orders. This combined with the uncertainty surround the sport following an attempted breakaway series set up by FOTA last year (sound familiar?), the Mclaren spygate controversy of 2007 and the Lewis Hamilton liegate of 2009 have damaged the image of the sport and its attractiveness to potential sponsors.

    However, Chairman of FOTA (Mclaren team principal Martin Whitmarsh) has conceded that the sport has much work to do in increasing its appeal to audiences by further utilising the Internet, lowering ticket prices at circuits and improving the on-track action. These plans are in place, with a new set of regulations being drawn up for 2013 which should achieve these objectives as well as lowering the general costs for teams.

    This combined with F1’s continued expansion into new markets (the first Indian grand prix in 2011, the return to the United States in 2012 and rumours of a Russian GP for the same year) should put F1 back on the right track to profitability by further improving sponsor appeal.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/michael-schumacher/7923116/David-Coulthard-Michael-Schumacher-must-do-more-than-apologise-to-repair-legacy.html

    David Coulthard: Michael Schumacher must do more than apologise to repair legacy

    By David Coulthard, 8:00AM BST 03 Aug 2010


    Controversial: Michael Schumacher (left) has come in for criticism after turning his car in towards Williams driver Rubens Barrichello at the Hungarian Grand Prix Photo: EA

    Mercedes driver Michael Schumacher has a long way to go before he can fully repair his tainted legacy in Formula One. Stop the presses. Miracles can happen. I’m not sure whether Michael Schumacher was ordered to apologise by Mercedes, whether the morning papers got to him (it would be a first)

    or whether he has truly had a change of heart over his performance in Sunday’s Hungarian Grand Prix, when he nearly put Rubens Barrichello into a wall at 200mph, but we may have to revise our opinions of him. Perhaps the 2010 Michael has realised the error of his ways? Certainly this would have been completely out of character in his first F1 career.

    I remember a conversation I had with him at Monza in 1998. It was the race after he had crashed into the back of me at Spa; the one where he sought me out in the McLaren garage afterwards and gave the watching snappers something of a gift-wrapped opportunity by throttling yours truly to the words: “Are you trying to ——- kill me?”

    Anyway, we met at a neutral venue, the catering tent adjacent to Bernie Ecclestone’s paddock home. Michael was refusing to accept any responsibility for what happened in Belgium. I asked him whether he had ever been wrong about anything at any point in his life. “Not that I can remember,” he responded.

    In many respects that story, for me, summed up his flawed genius. A brilliant driver but an outcast from the sporting Hall of Fame because of occasional bouts of unsportsmanlike behaviour. Sunday’s episode at the Hungaroring was merely the latest in a long line of on-track indiscretions.

    Adelaide 1994, Jerez 1997, Monaco 2005… not only does Michael employ the crudest tactics imaginable on occasion, he refuses to apologise for them, even when demonstrably in the wrong. Until Monday that is. So are we to believe he has turned a corner? Or is he simply trying to stem the tide of moral outrage?

    One thing I would say for him is that he has shown a good deal more humility in press conferences this year; smiling, patient, open about his lack of success. Mind you, given his on-track form I guess he hasn’t had much choice. There is no doubt that he screwed up badly on Sunday, apology or no apology.

    It is no exaggeration to say that at that speed, contact might have been fatal. When wheels touch, cars can go airborne and once that happens you are to some extent in the lap of the gods. A driver’s head is exposed and as we saw with Felipe Massa in Hungary last year, it does not require much in the way of debris to cause serious damage.

    Michael was clearly in the wrong. As Rubens said, you pick a line and stick to it. You do not drift progressively further over towards your rival, and certainly not when he has pulled up alongside you with a wall on the other side of him. But it was his complete lack of contrition afterwards that really stuck in the craw.

    “We know certain drivers have certain views, and then there’s Rubens,” he said as if the Brazilian was merely getting upset because of their history together at Ferrari. That arrogance was tolerated, even excused, when he was winning races. It was part of the whole package. Now that he is being regularly shown up by his younger team-mate and compatriot, Nico Rosberg, such lapses of character will not wash.

    Until he made his apology, the calls for him to quit immediately were shrill. I wonder whether his mea culpa will make any difference. Personally I do not subscribe to the view that he should be hounded out now. He is not the worst driver on the grid and if he believes he still has one big punch left in him, and someone is willing to pay him to deliver it, he can make his own mind up about how long he should continue.

    But he should be warned; if he chooses to stay, episodes such as the one we saw on Sunday will badly damage his legacy. An apology was a start, but he has a way to go before he can be considered a true champion in every sense of the word.

    David Coulthard is writing on behalf of Red Bull Racing F1, for whom he acts as a consultant.


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/motorsport/formulaone/michael-schumacher/7923776/Michael-Schumacher-invited-disaster-in-Budapest-says-Sir-Jackie-Stewart.html

    Michael Schumacher ‘invited disaster’ in Budapest, says Sir Jackie Stewart

    By Telegraph staff, 9:37AM BST 03 Aug 2010


    Averting disaster: Michael Schumacher has been slammed by sir Jackie Stewart Photo: ACTION IMAGES

    Sir Jackie Stewart, the three-time world champion, says that Michael Schumacher “invited disaster” after Rubens Barrichello came close to crashing at 180mph during the Hungarian Grand Prix. The Mercedes veteran received a 10-place grid penalty for the Belgium Grand Prix after a dangerous move which saw him almost edge Williams’ Barrichello into the pit wall during the closing stages of Sunday’s race.

    After initially defending his move, Schumacher issued an apology to Barrichello, who partnered him at Ferrari from 2000 to 2005. “We are never more than a millimetre away from something awful happening and for Schumacher to do what he did with Rubens Barrichello is just inviting disaster,” Stewart told the Daily Express.

    “For one driver to do that deliberately, knowing that the wheels could interlock and that he had nowhere to go, was shocking.” Referring to the deaths of Ayrton Senna and Roland Ratzenberger in 1994 at the San Marino Grand Prix, Stewart added: “It is 16 years and four months since we lost a driver.

    “It was one of the most blatant abuses of another driver that I have seen. It is a terrible example from a man who has seven world titles, bully-boy tactics. The punishment was the minimum they could do. It cannot go on.”

    Meanwhile the FIA, the sport’s governing body, has announced the date of Ferrari’s hearing into their actions in Hockenheim two weekends ago when they defied a ban on team orders by instructing Felipe Massa to stand aside and allow team-mate Fernando Alonso through to win the race.


    http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2010/8/11149.html

    UBS and Formula 1™ announce Global Partnership

    London, 23 August, 2010

    UBS and Formula 1™ today announced that they have signed an agreement for UBS to become a Global Partner of Formula 1™. The partnership will be formally launched at the 2010 FORMULA 1 SINGTEL SINGAPORE GRAND PRIX, which runs from 24 to 26 September, 2010.

    The agreement follows a comprehensive evaluation by UBS of the commercial benefits of all global sponsorship properties. Formula 1™ is a year round, highly visible, and popular sport with an especially strong presence in many of UBS’s key growth markets such as Asia, Middle East and Latin America. The long-term partnership will provide excellent branding and hospitality opportunities that fit with UBS’s global footprint and business strategy. Key benefits of the partnership include;

    • Global reach: currently 19 events in 18 countries on 4 continents
    • Growth markets: Formula 1™ is present and growing strongly in strategically important markets for UBS such as Asia, Middle East and Latin America
    • Brand awareness: global television audience in 2009 of more than 520 million people across 187 countries; making Formula 1™ one of the most-watched annual sports in the world
    • Client entertainment: fascinating opportunities for key client hospitality across the globe
    • Year round presence: Formula 1™ season lasts eight months of the year

    Oswald Grübel, UBS Group Chief Executive, said:

    “UBS has been searching for a global sponsorship platform that has appeal to our clients, promotes our brand globally and makes good commercial sense. Our new partnership with one of the largest and most popular sporting organizations in the world will fulfil all these criteria, and it constitutes a key element of our newly launched branding activities. The global reach of F1™ complements the many local activities we support.”

    Bernie Ecclestone, Group CEO of Formula 1™, said: “UBS is a global company where performance, teamwork and superior execution are integral to their clients’ success. These values complement those of Formula 1™ and I’m delighted to welcome UBS to Formula 1™.”

    In line with all commercial contracts, the financial terms of the agreement will not be disclosed by UBS or Formula 1™. Commercial attractiveness was however a key consideration for UBS and the agreement compares favourably with other forms of brand awareness and client hospitality.


    http://www.advfn.com/nyse/StockNews.asp?stocknews=UBS&article=44102550

    UBS To Sponsor Formula 1 Racing From Singapore Grand Prix

    By Katharina Bart, Dow Jones Newswires; +41 43 443 8043; katharina.bart@dowjones.com

    ZURICH -(Dow Jones)- UBS AG (UBS) said Monday it will sponsor Formula 1 racing from the Singapore Grand Prix later this month, part of its new branding push. UBS said it wouldn’t disclose financial details of the sponsorship, though “commercial attractiveness was…a key consideration for UBS and the agreement compares favourably with other forms of brand awareness and client hospitality,” the bank said in a statement.

    The Formula 1 sponsorship comes as UBS launches “we will not rest,” its most extensive advertising campaign in several years, aiming to mend relations with clients, in particular at UBS’s flagship private bank, which is still leaking wealthy client assets. The campaign features personalities such as Neil Armstrong, the first astronaut to walk on the moon, and Swiss-French architect and designer Le Corbusier.

    “UBS is a global company where performance, teamwork and superior execution are integral to their clients’ success. These values complement those of Formula 1 and I’m delighted to welcome UBS to Formula 1,” Formula One boss Bernie Ecclestone said in a joint statement. Private banks such as UBS traditionally sponsor to offer perks to wealthy clients.

    Specifically, UBS backs the Montreux Jazz Festival, Art Basel and Weltklasse Zurich, a competition of track and field’s Diamond League. Past sponsorships have included Swiss billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli’s Alinghi sailing team, which won the America’s Cup in 2003 and 2007.

    UBS’s sponsorship of Formula 1 racing comes more than a year after hometown rival Credit Suisse Group (CS), which used to sponsor Formula One team BMW Sauber, failed to renew a contract to sponsor that team.


    http://en.espnf1.com/f1/motorsport/story/26282.html

    F1 signs sponsorship deal with UBS

    ESPNF1 Staff, August 23, 2010

    Formula One announced on Monday that it had secured the services of Swiss based global financial company UBS to become a global sponsorship partner. UBS chief executive Oswald Grubel, who previously brought the Swiss bank Credit Suisse to F1, said the partnership would benefit both the brand and the sport.

    “UBS has been searching for a global sponsorship platform that has appeal to our clients, promotes our brand globally and makes good commercial sense,” said Grubel. “Our new partnership with one of the largest and most popular sporting organizations in the world will fulfil all these criteria, and it constitutes a key element of our newly launched branding activities. The global reach of F1 complements the many local activities we support.” The deal will be formally launched at next month’s Singapore Grand Prix.

    © ESPN EMEA Ltd.


    http://www.imlsportsmarketing.co.uk/news168.html

    UBS signs global F1 sponsorship deal

    Formula One has signed Swiss bank UBS as a global partner in a deal it hopes will mark a turnaround following the exit of several financial institutions from the sport due to the economic crisis. The bank refused to say how much it is paying in the agreement – unconfirmed reports value the deal at $200 million – but an official statement said “commercial attractiveness was a key consideration.”

    Less than a year ago UBS’s hometown rival Credit Suisse Group ended its sponsorship of Formula One constructor BMW Sauber. Dutch-based financial group ING also quit as Renault’s title sponsor in 2009. UBS also sponsors Weltklasse Zurich, the Swiss leg of athletics’ Diamond League, and previously backed Swiss billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli’s Alinghi sailing team, which won the America’s Cup in 2003 and 2007.

    The sponsorship comes as UBS launches its “we will not rest” advertising campaign, aiming to mend relations with clients. UBS’s flagship private bank in particular is still leaking wealthy client assets following the subprime mortgage crisis and a lengthy tax dispute with the United States government.


    http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/180976/ubs-signs-global-f1-sponsorship-deal

    UBS signs global F1 sponsorship deal

    Formula One has signed Swiss bank UBS as a global partner in a deal it hopes will mark a turnaround following the exit of several financial institutions from the sport due to the economic crisis. The bank is understood to be paying $200 million over five years. UBS also sponsors Weltklasse Zurich, the Swiss leg of athletics’ Diamond League, and previously backed Swiss billionaire Ernesto Bertarelli’s Alinghi sailing team, which won the America’s Cup in 2003 and 2007.

    Less than a year ago UBS’s hometown rival Credit Suisse Group ended its sponsorship of Formula One constructor BMW Sauber. Dutch-based financial group ING also quit as Renault’s title sponsor in 2009. The sponsorship comes as UBS launches its “we will not rest” advertising campaign, aiming to mend relations with clients.

    UBS’s flagship private bank in particular is still leaking wealthy client assets following the subprime mortgage crisis and a lengthy tax dispute with the United States government. It was also announced the Just Marketing International agency was retained by UBS to provide a range of services including strategic counsel, account management, hospitality and communications disciplines. JMI closely advised and guided UBS on its entry to Formula One.


    http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/ubs_unveil_formula_one_partnership/

    UBS sign US$200 million Formula One partnership

    By Tom Love, 23 August 2010

    Swiss financial services company UBS have signed an agreement to be a global partner of Formula One. The company, whose previous major sports sponsorship was with the Alinghi America’s Cup team, joins LG, Mumm and DHL as Formula One global partners. Just Marketing International (JMI), the specialist motorsports agency, brokered the deal on the company’s behalf, negotiating with Formula One Management’s Bernie Ecclestone.

    No official financial details were released, but well-placed sources have indicated the initial five-year deal is worth up to US$40 million annually, roughly the equivalent of a Formula One team title sponsorship. Oswald Grubel, UBS group chief executive, said of the deal:

    “UBS has been searching for a global sponsorship platform that has appeal to our clients, promotes our brand globally and makes good commercial sense. Our new partnership with one of the largest and most popular sporting organisations in the world will fulfil all these criteria, and it constitutes a key element of our newly launched branding activities. The global reach of F1 complements the many local activities we support.”

    UBS has just rolled out a new global advertising campaign and it is understood that it’s Formula One sponsorship, which will begin in September, will feature extensive trackside advertising, including unique positioning.

    “All of us at JMI are delighted that UBS has chosen Formula One as a global sponsorship platform,” added Zak Brown, the founder and chief executive of JMI. “The partnership has strong alignment to UBS’s truly international stature and strategic business objectives, particularly in key growth markets.

    We are proud to add UBS to our cherished portfolio of clients and privileged to support another fine brand in its introduction to and ongoing presence in the sport.” The deal will officially begin with the Singapore Grand Prix, Formula One’s night race, on September 26th. It is understood that the deal is for five years, with options beyond that.


    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11063192

    Formula One signs up UBS as ‘global partner’

    23 August 2010 Last updated at 16:27 GMT

    Swiss banking group UBS has signed a sponsorship deal to become “a global partner” of Formula One motor racing. No details of the partnership, which will be officially launched at the Singapore Grand Prix at the end of September, were revealed. A number of banks are pulling out of Formula One.

    UBS told the BBC it would use its sponsorship both for brand building in key regions and for hospitality for its “ultra-high net-worth clients”. UBS becomes the fourth “global partner” in Formula One. The others are German insurer Allianz, German logistics company DHL and South Korean electronics giant LG. These companies all have their brands prominently displayed at Formula One races.

    UBS said details of how the “long-term” sponsorship would be “activated” were “still being finalised”. “We will have a big, big brand presence at races,” a spokesman told the BBC. This would fit particularly well with the bank’s plans to expand in Asia, the Middle East and Latin America, he said.

    ‘Global brand’

    Some banks, including Credit Suisse, RBS and ING, decided not to renew their ties with Formula One during the financial crisis. Spain’s Santander, however, continues to sponsor Ferrari and McLaren drivers Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button. “UBS has been searching for a global sponsorship platform that has appeal to our clients, promotes our brand globally and makes good commercial sense,” said Oswald Grubel, the bank’s chief executive.

    “Our new partnership with one of the largest and most popular sporting organisations in the world will fulfil all these criteria”. Adam Parr, chairman of Williams Formula One racing team, which is losing RBS as a sponsor at the end of this season, said: “This is a very significant announcement, regardless of the size of the sponsorship”.

    “The fact that another major bank is looking to Formula One as its primary global marketing platform is very positive.”


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-23/ubs-becomes-formula-1-motor-racing-sponsor-as-rbs-prepares-to-pull-backing.html

    UBS Becomes Formula One Car Racing Sponsor as RBS Prepares to Pull Backing

    By Alex Duff – Aug 23, 2010 7:00 PM GMT+0700

    UBS AG agreed to sponsor Formula One car racing, backing a series that Credit Suisse AG and other banks abandoned amid the credit crunch. Zurich-based UBS, Switzerland’s biggest bank, said it will become a so-called global partner of the 19-race championship from next month’s Singapore Grand Prix. Terms weren’t disclosed.

    Banks fled Formula One as they struggled to justify the cost in the last two years. Credit Suisse quit backing the Sauber team in 2008 and ING Groep NV ended its sponsorship of Renault’s entry in 2009. Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc is withdrawing from supporting the Williams team this year after being bailed out by the U.K. government.

    “UBS has been searching for a global sponsorship platform that has appeal to our clients, promotes our brand globally and makes good commercial sense,” UBS Group Chief Executive Officer Oswald Gruebel said in a statement. This agreement “will fulfill all these criteria,” Gruebel added.

    UBS ended its sponsorship deal with Alinghi after the team won the 2007 America’s Cup amid a 30-month legal wrangle about the rules of sailing’s oldest event. To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Duff in Madrid at aduff4@bloomberg.net.


    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44eb5356-aee1-11df-8e45-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1wFYiYM4t

    UBS on the F1 starting grid

    By Roger Blitz and James Allen in London and Haig Simonian in Zurich
    August 23, 2010 7:21 pm

    UBS is moving into Formula One as a global partner, giving the Swiss bank a platform to underpin its rebranding and advertising campaign. The partnership, which begins at next month’s Singapore Grand Prix, also gives momentum to F1’s global partner programme, an area that private equity group CVC felt was under-exploited when it took on the commercial rights in 2005. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

    Oswald Grübel, UBS chief executive, said the group had been searching for a sponsorship platform that appealed to clients, promoted the brand and made commercial sense. “Our new partnership with one of the largest and most popular sporting organisations in the world will fulfil all these criteria and it constitutes a key element of our newly launched branding activities,” he said.

    The UBS campaign, launched this week, is the bank’s first in more than two years and is believed to be costing SFr60m ($58m) this year alone. The deal reflects the enthusiasm of Mr Grübel, UBS’s chief executive since February 2009, for fast cars and powerful engines. In his previous role as chief executive of rival Credit Suisse, Mr Grübel was personally behind a long sponsorship of Switzerland’s Sauber F1 racing team.

    UBS had been best known in sports for its lavish support for Alinghi, the Swiss two-time winner of the America’s Cup yacht race. However, the bank’s commitment to sailing came into question during the credit crisis as resources were stretched and Ernesto Bertarelli, Alinghi’s billionaire backer, stepped down from UBS’s board.

    Although the bank had pulled back from many other sponsorships, notably its support for the Verbier Festival and Orchestra, speculation had mounted about a possible revival as UBS returned to profitability in recent quarters. However, critics questioned the suitability of F1 for a focused Swiss bank, compared with retail bank sponsors such as Spain’s Santander.

    High quality global journalism requires investment. Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2012. You may share our article. Please share this article with others, by cutting & paste the article, or redistribute by email or post to the web. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail.

    Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/44eb5356-aee1-11df-8e45-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1wFeVjUrj


    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/7960547/UBS-sticks-by-you-and-us-in-Formula-1-sponsorship-deal.html

    UBS sticks by ‘you & us’ in Formula 1 sponsorship deal

    By Harry Wilson, 6:45AM BST 24 Aug 2010

    The last couple of years have seen banks pull back from the high-profile, but expensive sponsorship of Formula 1 motor racing, however UBS appears to have reversed that trend. UBS banks on F1 thrills and spills: Smoke comes from the car of Toro Rosso’s Spanish driver Jaime Alguersuari at Formula One Hungarian Grand Prix. Photo: AFP

    In a joint statement yesterday, Oswald Grübel, chief executive of UBS, and Bernie Ecclestone, head of Formual 1, announced a deal under which the Swiss bank will become a global sponsor of the sport. Details of the deal were being kept underwraps, however two sources with experience of Formula 1 sponsorship packages said it would cost the bank tens of millions pounds a year.

    A spokesman for UBS would not comment on how long the arrangement would last for, with the bank saying it had signed a “long-term partnership” with Formula 1. The cost of sponsoring the sport is likely to have fallen in recent years as financial crisis and recession have hit corporate marketing budgets.

    In the past the cost of sponsoring an individual team for a season was about £25m, while supporting just one race could cost between £5m and £20m, according to one former industry marketer. “UBS has been searching for a global sponsorship platform that has appeal to our clients, promotes our brand globally and makes good commercial sense,” Mr Grübel said.

    In recent years, the banking industry’s relationship with Formula 1 has been more noteworthy for the firms that have pulled their sponsorship than for new entrants. Royal Bank of Scotland had been a major sponsor of the sport up until its collapse, while Dutch financial group ING was another to sever its financial ties in the wake of the global banking crisis.

    UBS decision to sponsor Formula 1 ties in with the launch of its new “we will not rest” marketing campaign designed by French advertising agency Publicis. The total cost of the new campaign, which replaces the bank’s previous “You & Us” advertising has not been made public, but will not have been cheap.

    UBS was one of the largest victims of the financial crisis, losing tens of billions of pounds and requiring a massive injection of state funds by the Swiss authorities to prop it up as its losses grew.


    http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9231&sid=bc4497176133fb47a2a20847b161b79e

    Low Cost F1

    ESPImperium, Location: Glasgow, Scotland, Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:57 am

    marcush. wrote:is there a budget cap in LeMans racing? it is in my opinion a special case and representative for sportscar racing as such. But really capping the money spent is the ways to go.Virgins 40Mill are enough in my view and drop all the idiotic rules. And Virgin are now looking at the figure of $555m to $60m a year just to be at the level of where Toro Rosso were at this year, albeit arround a few tenths off that in raw lap time, but a massive improvement on where they are.

    What id do is this. Make teams develop a car over two or three years, two would be ideal. Limit them to only manufacturing 7 chassis (tubs) of ther those two years. Keep rules stable for a period of 5 years with that. Only close saftey lopholes off. But with that, id allow teams greater scope in terms of development, but at a price, and that price is that each car cannot use up any more than 100kg of fuel per race, standardise the fuel tanks in otherwords.

    However, to reduce costs futher, id outlaw 60% models in the wind tunnel, and only allow each team 7 full days of tunnel testing each year, but at full scale. But with that id open up testing at cuircits, with each team allowed to do 8 hours testing with a reserve driver at 5 Grand Prix ever year, excluding street cuircits. Id limit the ammount of upgrades to 2 full and 3 detail per team per year.

    Make teams rely on CFD more, and if parts dont work, the cost of that is increased, thus cutting wastage. The main area at the moment that you can cut is wind tunnels, if you cut them out, you could probably take up to 30% off the budget of a team. CFD is only about 7% of an average teams budget i read somewhere. One other big area of the budget is the Rapid Prototyping department, model making can take up to 20% of a budget.

    Team Budgets are roughly as follows:

    1. Ferarri = $480m
    2. McLaren = $325m
    3. Red Bull = $285m
    4. Mercedes = $205m
    5. Renault = $165m
    6. Williams = $135m
    7. Sauber = $125m
    8. Force India = $108m
    9. Toro Rosso = $95
    10. Team Lotus = $78m
    11. Virgin = $44m
    12. Hispania = $34m

    If i were the FIA, id try and get the teams to reduce the costs by making them run a car programme over 2 years, so for example the F10 would become the F10B or the RB6 would become the RB6B. However id also allow a single year opt out for teams that didnt come P4 or higher in the constructors table, meaning that they could opt out of a new car for one from fresh to get things closer to the cars ahead of them.

    MugenHonda, Fri Dec 03, 2010 9:23 am

    To me spending over $100m is just unneeded and with the recession F1 is losing small teams and manufacturs pulling out F1 needes to cut costs and fast. The cost of the chassic isn’t the cause because Virgin spent a max on the car and updates and during the year the car become faster and more reliabile. Ferrari mclaren and Red Bull should cut the costs.

    hecti, Fri Dec 03, 2010 5:45 pm

    The recession is over btw… F1 will never be low cost, its a fact. If you go into f1 you better have deep pockets, its the only way you’ll be able to compete and win. I need some A1 Ring action….like now Mr. Bernie!!! YES!! No more I-4 Turbo’s!!! for now at least… This is the problem with F1 today, people that see a loop hole (or a “loose” rule) and decide to close it instead of letting the flaw in the rules be fully exploited.

    This experimenting/ingenuity/looking for an advantage is what f1 is about, its all about who can get closest to breaking the rules and pushing design and engineering to the limit. Thinking outside the box!!


    http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9568

    How much does it cost to sponsor an F1 Team?

    WilliamsF1, Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:36 pm

    With so many teams (williams, HRT, sauber) running short of a main Sponsor to fill the side pod space and other major space will be see teams running local sponsorship at each GP? Brawn did it in 2009 and made a decent amount of case. With track side sponsorship tightly controlled by the FOM, one race deal with teams will be great deal for local companies for moving bill boards. Teams should tap into this untapped market during these tight times.

    eg: A $2 million deal at each track will give a team $40 million through the season which is what the a title sponsorship costs.

    ESPImperium, Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:52 pm

    Petronas gave BMW Sauber €55m a year for for the BMW years, they now give Mercedes €35m for title sponsorship. Williams receive €22m from AT&T. The biggest single sponsor in F1 is Red Bull, and that is to €250m for its works team and ¢90m for its junior team. Behind that its Ferrari and the Morris Group, they get €175m.

    However, if you look at some of the least prominent sponsorships, take CNN on Team Lotus front wing, that is a €5.5m and the similar deal with CNBC on the Marussia Virgin is only €3.2m. Sponsorship is the old pice of sting, how long is it. However some sponsorships are backed up with allot of technical support, case in point is Brigestone from 2007 to 2010, they cave each team a minimum of €10m sponsorshp and roughly €20m of technical support.

    Pirelli are running it slightly differently, the top 10 teams from the year previous pay €4.5m with free tire engineers, the teams that went top 10 are given a reduced rate of €2.5m with free engineers. Another case in point is non car sponsors, like Sauber with Mitsubishi Electric, who will only appear on headed paper/press releases/web site only. They only supply technical support. Teams are run in many different ways, and all need to get support from different means.

    The above post is the future for many teams, race by race deals, regional deals, and is now ultimately cheaper for companies to get their logos on TV, as FOMs rates are all inflated for trackside sponsorship, the cheapest is Allianz at €15m for 2011 with a 6% accumulator on the previous season and thats only for the pit lane only.

    And as long as the car livery is the same, its in the sporting rules, it means that teams can go for race by race deals, and get a larger budget. Williams, Sauber and Hispania will follow this route this year i think. All other teams will do it in a smaller way i feel.


    http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/business/ubs-and-jpmorgan-chase-forecast-major-investment-ahead-for-indonesia/502932

    UBS and JPMorgan Chase Forecast Major Investment Ahead for Indonesia

    Francezka Nangoy & Dion Bisara | March 06, 2012

    A pair of global investment giants voiced their optimism on the business opportunities in Indonesia following the nation’s improved credit rating. Rajiv Louis, the head of the Indonesian unit of Swiss banking giant UBS AG, said they expected even better things for their investment banking business in 2012 after a “record year” in 2011.

    “We are going to have an even bigger year this year,” he said. “The interest level from investors from outside Indonesia as well as strategic investors and private equity investors is the highest that we have ever seen.”  Moody’s Investors Service and Fitch Ratings raised Indonesia’s sovereign debt rating to investment grade in the past three months.

    Rajiv said the upgrade would drive down borrowing costs for Indonesian companies to “the lowest level in history.” Rajiv said UBS Securities Indonesia was involved in 16 transactions last year, including corporate lending of almost $500 million.

    UBS Securities was one of three investment banks, along with JPMorgan Chase & Company and Deutsche Bank Securities, assisting the Indonesian government with a $2.5 billion international bond sale in April last year. On equities, Rajiv said small initial public offerings would not attract foreign investors.

    He said investors had learned lessons from the 2008 financial crisis, when they had trouble cashing in their investments in stocks in companies valued at less than $150 million. Separately, Gregory L. Guyett, JPMorgan Chase’s global corporate banking chief executive, said on Tuesday that Indonesia would benefit from this year’s recovering in global trade.

    “China’s economy is bigger than 10 years ago and more of that growth will come from domestic consumption rather than a re-export of things,” he said. Guyett said Indonesia “is very high on the [investment priority] list” for multinational companies from Europe, the United States and Japan.

    Interest for investment is high, he said, “because the country is very big, with 240 million consumers, but also because it is a very attractive place to establish a presence, such as a factory or assembly plants.”


    http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/a-formula-one-ipo-pros-and-cons/

    A Formula One IPO: pros and cons

    by Joe Saward, April 25, 2012

    The Formula One group, which is largely owned by CVC Capital Partners, is planning to list around 20 percent of the shares of the company on the Singapore Stock Exchange in July, with the goal of raising between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. This would value the company at around $10 billion. This is a very aggressive timeline for an IPO and it remains to be seen whether investors will go for the shares.

    There are a number of significant questions that will cloud the value of the company. There is talk of a new Concorde Agreement being in the pipeline, but it is not yet signed and there is also the potential of legal action from at least one very large company that is not part of the deal at the moment. In addition there are questions about the company leadership. Bernie Ecclestone is 81 years of age and still doing a great job, but there is no sign of any succession plan, at least not one that has been made public. It could be that CVC plans to put someone like Sir Martin Sorrell, a current board member of the group’s holding company, into the leading role, but that will not happen until Ecclestone disappears from the scene.

    There are also questions about various legal actions that could affect Ecclestone’s situation. Those are the risks for investors. On the upside, there is the potential of an expanded World Championship, with higher revenues, although these will inevitably be the source of discontent in the ranks of the teams, which believe that they should be getting a much higher share of the revenues. There is a also a significant debt load.

    Formula One has appointed Goldman Sachs and UBS as its joint global co-ordinators for the IPO. Goldman has been advising CVC for some time and UBS is an F1 sponsor. There are four additional joint bookrunners: Morgan Stanley, Banco Santander, Singapore’s DBS Group and and Malaysia’s CIMB.

    They will now work to find syndicates and underwriters who will place the shares with investors. The next step will be road shows and discussions about the best offering price and the timetable for the flotation. The idea of using multiple bookrunners is to try to improve the offer price.

    The disadvantages of an IPO for Formula One include requirements to disclose financial and business information which has never been a Formula One strongpoint, even before a flotation can be achieved. There is a risk that the required funding will not be raised, as happened before when a previous attempt was made to float.

    A listing in Asia is clearly an attempt to cash in on the region’s interest in international sporting brands.


    http://www.yallaf1.com/2012/04/25/more-banks-added-to-formula-1-ipo-line-up/

    More banks added to Formula 1 IPO line-up

    Reuters, 25.04.2012

    Apr.25 (Reuters) Morgan Stanley, Spain’s Banco Santander, Singapore’s DBS Group and Malaysia’s CIMB will join banks working on F1′s planned floatation in Singapore, IFR reported on Tuesday. The four will act as bookrunners after UBS and Goldman Sachs were hired earlier this month to lead the expected $2 billion initial public offering, said IFR, a service owned by Thomson Reuters.

    F1 management made a presentation at London’s Savoy Hotel to analysts from banks involved in the plan, sources close to the deal told Reuters. There was no immediate comment from any of the banks named. UBS and Santander are sponsors in F1, the 20-race circuit that tours the globe and draws an estimated television audience of more than 500 million for each grand prix.

    Private equity firm CVC Capital Partners, which owns 63.4 percent of F1, is looking to list part of the premier motor racing business in Singapore but would continue to hold shares, sources told Reuters previously. An Asia-based listing would help the company tap the region’s interest in international sporting brands.

    English soccer champions Manchester United have also looked at a listing in Singapore but put plans on hold last September because of market volatility.

    Subbed by AJN.


    http%3A%2F%2Frealdeals.eu.com%2Fmega_market%2Ff1-ipo-gets-green-light

    http://realdeals.eu.com/mega_market/f1-ipo-gets-green-light

    F1 IPO gets green light

    by Brendan Scott, 21 May 2012

    Motorsport Formula 1 has inched closer to its eagerly awaited IPO after the Singapore Stock Exchange gave the offering the go-ahead. Motorsport Formula 1 has inched closer to its eagerly awaited IPO after the Singapore Stock Exchange gave the offering the go-ahead. Media reports suggest that officials at the Asian bourse have approved the sale, which could raise between $2.5bn (€1.96bn) and $3bn for its private equity sponsor, CVC Capital Partners.

    CVC is hoping that by going public in Singapore it will benefit from enthusiasm for the sport among Asian fans. The IPO, which is being managed by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and UBS, has been expected for months and could value the entire business at around $10bn. CVC bought Formula 1 in 2007 for $1.7bn, but the investment ran into trouble when it was alleged in 2010 that Bayern LB banker Gerhard Gribkowsky took a bribe when selling the racing brand to the private equity firm.

    Sports magnate and face of F1 Bernie Ecclestone admitted in court last November to paying Gribkowsky a $44m payment for selling the business, but denied any misdeed. CVC managing partner told a Munich court in January that his firm had no knowledge of the payments, labelling them a “breach of contract”.


    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-04/11/content_12303620.htm

    F1 sponsors expect lucrative returns

    By Matt Hodges (China Daily), Updated: 2011-04-11 11:12


    An aerial view of the Shanghai International Circuit, which has hosted the Chinese F1 Grand Prix since 2004. Provided to China Daily.

    SHANGHAI – So what if people aren’t queuing up to watch the typically rain-soaked Chinese Grand Prix anymore, or if the closest thing to a Chinese Formula One star is a German who goes by the name of Michael Schumacher?

    The sport is still considered a huge money-spinner by sponsors like UBS, Allianz and Hublot, as they burrow deeper into the Chinese market with their respective messages of wiser wealth management, better road safety and the importance for China’s nouveau riche of owning an expensive Swiss wristwatch.

    “We started our activities in the Chinese market with Formula 1,” said Jean-Claude Biver, CEO of the LVMH-owned Swiss watchmaker Hublot. The sexagenarian apparently does not foresee any end to the company’s growth in status-conscious China during his lifetime, or for the next 60 years.

    “We really believe that most of our potential customers are interested in Formula One, and we are convinced that F1 is the best way to meet with them and communicate our brand,” he said, adding that “the Chinese customer is more brand sensitive than most”. Biver personally launched a new F1 watch at last year’s Chinese Grand Prix, which has been hosted in Shanghai since 2004.

    On its debut, attendance over the course of three days stood at 270,000 people. Then the numbers fell off to settle at 120,000 in 2009. Thanks to the reappearance last year of racing legend Schumacher, gate receipts gained some traction to total 155,000 – but the novelty factor of F1 for many Chinese had already evaporated.

    Promoters are hoping to fill the stands this year by slashing ticket prices for the April 14-17 race by 40 percent, meaning that the cheapest one-day ticket now costs 80 yuan ($12). “We’re not worried about this decline. We think it’s normal. In the first year, people came from all around because they wanted to see something they had never seen before.

    Now it’s die-hard fans only,” said Patrick Yang, managing director of Juss Event Management, a State-owned company and the organizer. He estimates that 70-80 percent of last year’s visitors were Shanghai locals, a much higher proportion than in the first few years.

    “We only started getting involved in F1 seven years ago, compared to the 1950s for many other countries. China has just started developing its car market. For example, we don’t have this trend of people customizing their cars yet,” he said. “We don’t need as much time as it took in the West to develop an F1 culture, but we still need time to go through this process.”

    Chinese F1 spectators tend to be younger than their Western counterparts, which is something sponsors should be aware of. Yang puts the age bracket in China at 20-45, meaning students and white collars instead of senior executives and retirees. “Our fans are younger,” he said. “When our parents’ generation was young, their biggest priority wasn’t motor sports. It was making sure there was enough food to eat.”

    China also lacks a Chinese racing star. Netherlands-born Tung Ho-pin, one of a handful of test drivers for Renault F1, probably ranks as the closest thing at present. In contrast, tennis has boomed in China over the last decade, built on the back of female players like Zheng Jie and Li Na sweeping trophies and making Grand Slam finals.

    As far back as 2005, Shanghai, which also hosts the Rolex Masters in October, had an official “tennis population” of 500,000, referring to people who play recreationally at least once or twice a week.


    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-04/11/content_12303620_2.htm


    Grid girls walk on the track after the qualifying session of the 2010 Chinese F1 Grand Prix. Jason Lee / Reuters


    China’s Grand Prix attracted more than 270,000 spectators in 2004 and the number fell to some 155,000 last year. Long Ping / For China Daily

    But hosting the F1 isn’t just about building a local fan base. It’s also a $40-million advertisement for the city. Juss signed a new seven-year deal with Formula One Management (FOM) this year to keep the race in China’s financial hub till 2017. FOM reportedly lowered its costs to sweeten the deal and keep China on board, according to comments made by Shanghai Vice-Mayor Zhao Wen.

    “The conditions of the agreement have improved, so we don’t need to spend so much this time because the vision of the two parties is getting more focused on how to promote F1 in China,” said Yang, who is unable to disclose financial details. FOM falls under the penumbra of the Formula One Group, which is responsible for the commercial rights of F1.

    It is controlled by CVC Capital Partners, one of the world’s top five private equity firms. JP Morgan and Bernie Ecclestone’s family trust hold most of the remaining shares in the group. “FOM is donating its resources to help promote the sport here. They are changing from being a trading partner to being a cooperative partner,” said Yang.

    Yet Juss has no say in sponsorship matters, according to Yang. FOM and its chief executive Ecclestone keep close tabs on sponsors via an intermediary agency purchased in 2006, Allsport Management. Nonetheless, the mood on the Chinese side is upbeat. Juss just about breaks even each year by selling the domestic TV rights to the race and managing the circuit.

    Meanwhile, Shanghai successfully organized the World Expo last year, and can now boast of hosting two key sporting events each calendar year, including the $3.2 million Shanghai Rolex Masters, as it aims to pull in overseas tourists and investors. “The Chinese Grand Prix has grown in stature since Shanghai first hosted the race in 2004,” said Jiang Lan, secretary-general of the Formula 1 Chinese Grand Prix Organizing Committee, late last year.

    “These are very exciting times.” Playboy millionaire drivers, screaming Ferrari engines, nail-biting hairpin bends, leggy models and everything that added to the glitz and glamour of F1 make it an attractive depositary for sponsors’ riches, but it is the huge TV audience that seals the deal.

    An estimated 527 million people watched F1 in 2010, making it the world’s most watched annual sport. “We estimate that the Chinese Grand Prix made a loss of $34.4 million in 2010, which was plugged by funding from the local government. However, like the many sponsors who are involved in F1, China’s real reason for taking part is not to make a profit – it’s those 527 million TV viewers,” said Caroline Reid of F1 consultants Formula Money.

    Some 70 million of those come from China, said Yang. “The number is increasing each year, but little by little,” he added.


    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-04/11/content_12303620_3.htm

    “F1 broadcasts China to the world, linking it to technology, sport and glamour, while showcasing the city of Shanghai,” said Reid. “This is why countries around the world are willing to pay high fees to the Formula One Group to host races, in the case of China an estimated $40.3 million.”

    “Sponsors can gain significant returns through buying branding on the cars compared to spending the equivalent sum on TV advertising,” she said. “We estimate that in 2010, Vodafone, for example, paid $65 million to McLaren as its title sponsor, but gained TV exposure which would have been worth $122.5 million if it had bought it as traditional TV advertising spots.

    “This is an extremely significant return, and at last year’s Chinese Grand Prix, F1’s team owners, sponsors and trackside advertisers gained exposure worth $87.7 million.” To add some perspective, the average value of an F1 sponsorship last year was $5.2 million, down from $7.2 million in 2008. The biggest team title sponsors pay as much $100 million a season.

    The global credit crunch has played a hand in reshaping the landscape of F1 sponsors. A number of prominent banks, such as Credit Suisse and ING, declined to extend their sponsorship contracts, while fashion labels like Hublot, Henri Lloyd and Savile Row tailors Gieves & Hawkes are now making their presence felt.

    The Financial Times reported on this last year as indicating a changing of the guard in terms of F1 sponsors, away from Big Tobacco and toward consumer, technology and high-fashion brands. Cue Hublot’s touchdown at the $450-million Shanghai International Circuit last year, when the watchmaker set up a boutique at the exclusive Paddock Club to wine and dine business contacts.

    This is considered especially important in China, where building guanxi, or strong relationships, makes all the difference between success and failure in the business world. “For the time being, our penetration in China is still weak. How could it be different after only one year?” said Biver.

    “But considering the short time, I must admit that China is a fast-growing market for us at the moment, and our penetration is extraordinarily rapid and strong.” Hublot entered China in 2009 and derives around 1 percent of its revenue from the country. Biver is not the only one buying into the China F1 dream, despite a series of setbacks that have hit the sport, and the race, over the last five years.

    These include the impact of the global recession, which saw three major F1 players, Honda, Toyota and BMW, pack up and leave in 2008 and 2009; into the vacuum slipped Asian-backed teams like Lotus, run by Air Asia boss Tony Fernandes of Malaysia, and Force India. F1 began officially recognizing commercial sponsorship in 1968, 18 years after the sport’s inaugural season.

    During the 1960s, sponsorship liveries overtook team colors to build races contested by what, at times, looked like giant speeding cigarette packets. Then things started to get really expensive. This investment-guzzling trend hit a new bump in the road in 2009, when sponsorship revenue dropped 8 percent from the previous year.

    This spelt bad news for teams, which typically rely on sponsors for 80-85 percent of their revenue, but not for the Formula One Group, which still rakes in about $1.3 billion a year from fees, trackside advertising and the ever-so-important TV rights. Scandals formed another annoying blip on the China radar in 2008, when Yu Zhifei, the man credited with bringing F1 to China, was jailed for four years as part of a huge crackdown on graft.

    As a sign that Asia’s reputation for clean and transparent management still needs some work, South Korea fired Chung Young-cho, the chief organizer of that country’s race, for lax management. However, none of this seems to have registered much with sponsors hungry to gobble up more of the Chinese, or Asian, market.

    Swiss bank UBS signed up last summer as F1’s fourth global sponsor, alongside German insurer Allianz and German logistics giant DHL, and South Korea’s LG. The deal gives UBS the right to act as title sponsor of the China Grand Prix, a title first held by Sinopec, China’s largest oil company.


    http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/epaper/2011-04/11/content_12303620_4.htm

    UBS, which also sponsors the annual Beijing Music Festival in October, sees F1 as a crucial stepping-stone for brand building and making its Chinese clients feel important. “The F1 UBS Chinese Grand Prix is the ideal launching pad for UBS to raise awareness of its brand via excellent branding and hospitality opportunities in one of the firm’s most important markets,” said David Li, chairman & country head of UBS China.

    “This sponsorship not only demonstrates the firm’s commitment to China, but also fulfils a core UBS value – that of supporting the communities in which it operates.” “The timing is great,” said Peter Dillon, UBS’ head of sponsorship for Asia-Pacific, “because of our brand reemergence and this new era of F1 in China”.

    UBS is bent on expanding all its business areas in China, with a special focus on research of stocks of small and medium-sized caps, said spokesperson Joanne Sin. According to Reid, there are two key ways to judge whether sponsors are getting a good return on their investment in the pinnacle of motor sport.

    “Some sponsors see their F1 involvement as the ideal business-to-business opportunity, as it gives them the opportunity to network with the other sponsors and team owners at each Grand Prix, and through this they can gain new clients and new contracts,” she said. “Other sponsors look more toward the business-to-consumer benefits.”

    Germany’s Allianz, the world’s top car insurer and team partner of Mercedes GP Petronas, probably falls more into the first camp. It has set itself an ambitious agenda of getting the message of road safety out to the world’s biggest car market.

    “Via our global F1 sponsorship, Allianz intends to endorse the very important message of road safety – shown also through the new branding on the safety cars,” said Gesa Walter, regional general manager of corporate communications for Allianz SE Insurance Management.

    Like most insurers, Allianz hopes to build up its customer base in China while lowering the number of claims. If the message is picked up, its marriage with F1 may have been made in sponsorship heaven. However there are indications that F1 sponsors in general are not satisfied with the job being done on their behalf by FOM. At the first meeting of the so-called F100 Alliance in London last September, those in attendance reportedly called for the sport to appoint its first marketing chief.

    “The combined value of the investment made in F1 by the brands attending is 458 million pounds (524 million euros). As a group, they are now urging the appointment of a senior figure to raise the profile of F1 and access untapped revenues,” reported marketingmagazine.co.uk.

    “The F100 organization identified online as an area in which it would like to see further investment.” This chimes with what Yang and his team is working on at their slick office, which brushes against Shanghai’s curvaceous Huangpu River. On the one hand, Juss is working with the Shanghai tourism bureau to exploit F1’s international appeal and make the city a top tourist draw.

    On the other, it is ratcheting up its customer care and tapping into new media to capitalize on China’s status as home to the world’s most Internet and cell phone users – increasing numbers of whom surf the Web on their phones. “You have to remember that each market has its own characteristics,” said Yang.

    “Chinese often come to watch the F1 as tourists rather than as fans, so from 2008 we started giving away wireless headphones with each ticket, and we hired two MCs to explain to them what was going on,” he said.

    “This year we registered our microblog on Sina.com (China’s biggest Web portal) and recorded 80,000 fans in the first five weeks. We’re using all kinds of new media to reach fans, including online forums and social networking. We also want to keep people happy on-site, so they’ll come back.”

    Juss’s biggest immediate target remains the people of Shanghai, but this could be expanded soon to incorporate the Yangtze River Delta region and wealthy outposts like Suzhou, which have quick and easy highway access to Shanghai.

    China Daily


    http://currents.westlawbusiness.com/Article.aspx?id=bb35cd6b-b0eb-478c-97d6-393c53e20ad6&cid=&src=&sp=

    http://sg.sports.yahoo.com/news/blackrock-investors-buy-1-6-billion-stake-f1-124238990–spt.html

    BlackRock, investors buy $1.6 billion stake in F1 – sources

    By Saeed Azhar and Elzio Barreto | Reuters – Wed, May 23, 2012 12:24 AM SGT

    SINGAPORE/HONG KONG (Reuters) – Private equity firm CVC Capital has sold a $1.6 billion stake in Formula One to three investors including BlackRock ahead of the motor racing company’s planned $3 billion initial public offering in Singapore, sources said on Tuesday.

    The deal sets a benchmark valuation of at least $7 billion for the company as financial advisers begin to target potential cornerstone and retail investors during the pre-marketing process of the IPO. The shares are expected to debut in June.

    The pre-IPO deal cuts CVC’s stake in Formula One to about 40 percent from 63.4 percent, one of the sources said. The two other investors are asset manager Waddell & Reed and Norway’s Norges Bank Investment Management, the asset management unit of the Norwegian central bank, known as Norges Bank.

    “It raises some capital, which may be required, and it gives the IPO a little bit more credibility if some well-known investment houses come on board pre-IPO,” said Peter Elston, head of Asia-Pacific strategy and asset allocation at Aberdeen Asset Management’s Asian unit.

    Finance Asia, which earlier reported the pre-IPO deal, said the transaction gives Formula One an enterprise value of about $9.1 billion including $7.2 billion of equity and $1.9 billion of debt. “We view this (pre-IPO deal) as a validation of the company’s valuation,” the source told Reuters.

    Goldman Sachs, UBS and Morgan Stanley are lead-managing the IPO, which could be Singapore’s biggest IPO since Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-Shing’s Hutchison Port Holdings Trust raised $5.5 billion in early 2011. Another Southeast Asia listing, Malaysia’s Felda Global Ventures Holding, plans a $3 billion IPO this year. Facebook Inc raised $16 billion last week in a record Internet IPO.

    The IPO is the long awaited public floatation of a franchise led by octogenarian billionaire Bernie Ecclestone, the white-maned, colorful Briton of modest upbringing who was once a race car driver himself. Formula One holds 20 races around the world and has more than 500 million television viewers.

    Officials with investment manager BlackRock declined to comment and officials at Norges Bank and Waddell were not available for comment. The F1 IPO is set to be priced before the end of June after the company and its bankers meet with investors and fund managers to gauge demand for the offering.

    “I don’t think it’s going to be priced cheaply,” said Roger Tan, chief executive of SIAS Research. “There’s a brand premium to it.” Formula One would join British luxury jeweller Graff Diamonds in braving equity markets despite a slump in global stocks. Graff started taking orders on Monday from institutional investors for its up to $1 billion Hong Kong IPO.

    IPOs had their worst start in about four years in the Asia-Pacific region with overall equity market activity down about a fifth from 2011 as investors fretted at buying new shares because of falling markets.

    MSCI’s index for Asia ex-Japan has fallen about 9 percent over the past month on concerns over slower growth in China and the fallout from Europe’s debt crisis. A source close to the Formula One deal said on May 12 the IPO could be delayed because of the ongoing market jitters.

    RATINGS IMPACT

    Formula One could have its B+ long-term debt ratings lifted one notch after the IPO because of an expected improvement in its debt profile, Standard & Poor’s said in a May 15 report when it put the company on “positive” watch.

    The decision “mainly reflects our view that after the IPO in the next two to three years, Formula One’s adjusted leverage is likely to lessen significantly and durably and that private equity sponsors will exit Formula One’s capital in the medium term,” S&P said in the report. Formula One earlier this month unveiled a $1.8 billion refinancing package to help lay the groundwork for the IPO.

    (Additional reporting by Charmian Kok; Editing by Matt Driskill and Michael Flaherty)


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2012/

    2012 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    18/03/2012

    Jenson Button

    McLaren-Mercedes

    58

    1:34:09.565

    Malaysia

    25/03/2012

    Fernando Alonso

    Ferrari

    56

    2:44:51.812

    China

    15/04/2012

    Nico Rosberg

    Mercedes

    56

    1:36:26.929

    Bahrain

    22/04/2012

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    57

    1:35:10.990

    Spain

    13/05/2012

    Pastor Maldonado

    Williams-Renault

    66

    1:39:09.145

    Monaco

    27/05/2012

    Mark Webber

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    78

    1:46:06.557

    Canada

    10/06/2012

    Europe

    24/06/2012

    Great Britain

    08/07/2012

    Germany

    22/07/2012

    Hungary

    29/07/2012

    Belgium

    02/09/2012

    Italy

    09/09/2012

    Singapore

    23/09/2012

    Japan

    07/10/2012

    Korea

    14/10/2012

    India

    28/10/2012

    Abu Dhabi

    04/11/2012

    United States

    18/11/2012

    Brazil

    25/11/2012


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2011/

    2011 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    27/03/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    58

    1:29:30.259

    Malaysia

    10/04/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    56

    1:37:39.832

    China

    17/04/2011

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    56

    1:36:58.226

    Turkey

    08/05/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    58

    1:30:17.558

    Spain

    22/05/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    66

    1:39:03.301

    Monaco

    29/05/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    78

    2:09:38.373

    Canada

    12/06/2011

    Jenson Button

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    4:04:39.537

    Europe

    26/06/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    57

    1:39:36.169

    Great Britain

    10/07/2011

    Fernando Alonso

    Ferrari

    52

    1:28:41.196

    Germany

    24/07/2011

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    60

    1:37:30.334

    Hungary

    31/07/2011

    Jenson Button

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:46:42.337

    Belgium

    28/08/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    44

    1:26:44.893

    Italy

    11/09/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    53

    1:20:46.172

    Singapore

    25/09/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    61

    1:59:06.757

    Japan

    09/10/2011

    Jenson Button

    McLaren-Mercedes

    53

    1:30:53.427

    Korea

    16/10/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    55

    1:38:01.994

    India

    30/10/2011

    Sebastian Vettel

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    60

    1:30:35.002

    Abu Dhabi

    13/11/2011

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    55

    1:37:11.886

    Brazil

    27/11/2011

    Mark Webber

    Red Bull Racing-Renault

    71

    1:32:17.464


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2010/

    2010 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Bahrain

    14/03/2010

    Fernando Alonso

    Ferrari

    49

    1:39:20.396

    Australia

    28/03/2010

    Jenson Button

    McLaren-Mercedes

    58

    1:33:36.531

    Malaysia

    04/04/2010

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    56

    1:33:48.412

    China

    18/04/2010

    Jenson Button

    McLaren-Mercedes

    56

    1:46:42.163

    Spain

    09/05/2010

    Mark Webber

    RBR-Renault

    66

    1:35:44.101

    Monaco

    16/05/2010

    Mark Webber

    RBR-Renault

    78

    1:50:13.355

    Turkey

    30/05/2010

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    58

    1:28:47.620

    Canada

    13/06/2010

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:33:53.456

    Europe

    27/06/2010

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    57

    1:40:29.571

    Great Britain

    11/07/2010

    Mark Webber

    RBR-Renault

    52

    1:24:38.200

    Germany

    25/07/2010

    Fernando Alonso

    Ferrari

    67

    1:27:38.864

    Hungary

    01/08/2010

    Mark Webber

    RBR-Renault

    70

    1:41:05.571

    Belgium

    29/08/2010

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    44

    1:29:04.268

    Italy

    12/09/2010

    Fernando Alonso

    Ferrari

    53

    1:16:24.572

    Singapore

    26/09/2010

    Fernando Alonso

    Ferrari

    61

    1:57:53.579

    Japan

    10/10/2010

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    53

    1:30:27.323

    Korea

    24/10/2010

    Fernando Alonso

    Ferrari

    55

    2:48:20.810

    Brazil

    07/11/2010

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    71

    1:33:11.803

    Abu Dhabi

    14/11/2010

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    55

    1:39:36.837


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2009/

    2009 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    29/03/2009

    Jenson Button

    Brawn-Mercedes

    58

    1:34:15.784

    Malaysia

    05/04/2009

    Jenson Button

    Brawn-Mercedes

    31

    55:30.622

    China

    19/04/2009

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    56

    1:57:43.485

    Bahrain

    26/04/2009

    Jenson Button

    Brawn-Mercedes

    57

    1:31:48.182

    Spain

    10/05/2009

    Jenson Button

    Brawn-Mercedes

    66

    1:37:19.202

    Monaco

    24/05/2009

    Jenson Button

    Brawn-Mercedes

    78

    1:40:44.282

    Turkey

    07/06/2009

    Jenson Button

    Brawn-Mercedes

    58

    1:26:24.848

    Great Britain

    21/06/2009

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    60

    1:22:49.328

    Germany

    12/07/2009

    Mark Webber

    RBR-Renault

    60

    1:36:43.310

    Hungary

    26/07/2009

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:38:23.876

    Europe

    23/08/2009

    Rubens Barrichello

    Brawn-Mercedes

    57

    1:35:51.289

    Belgium

    30/08/2009

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    44

    1:23:50.995

    Italy

    13/09/2009

    Rubens Barrichello

    Brawn-Mercedes

    53

    1:16:21.706

    Singapore

    27/09/2009

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    61

    1:56:06.337

    Japan

    04/10/2009

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    53

    1:28:20.443

    Brazil

    18/10/2009

    Mark Webber

    RBR-Renault

    71

    1:32:23.081

    Abu Dhabi

    01/11/2009

    Sebastian Vettel

    RBR-Renault

    55

    1:34:03.414


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2008/

    2008 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    16/03/2008

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    58

    1:34:50.616

    Malaysia

    23/03/2008

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    56

    1:31:18.555

    Bahrain

    06/04/2008

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    57

    1:31:06.970

    Spain

    27/04/2008

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    66

    1:38:19.051

    Turkey

    11/05/2008

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    58

    1:26:49.451

    Monaco

    25/05/2008

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    76

    2:00:42.742

    Canada

    08/06/2008

    Robert Kubica

    BMW Sauber

    70

    1:36:24.447

    France

    22/06/2008

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    70

    1:31:50.245

    Great Britain

    06/07/2008

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    60

    1:39:09.440

    Germany

    20/07/2008

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    67

    1:31:20.874

    Hungary

    03/08/2008

    Heikki Kovalainen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:37:27.067

    Europe

    24/08/2008

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    57

    1:35:32.339

    Belgium

    07/09/2008

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    44

    1:22:59.394

    Italy

    14/09/2008

    Sebastian Vettel

    STR-Ferrari

    53

    1:26:47.494

    Singapore

    28/09/2008

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    61

    1:57:16.304

    Japan

    12/10/2008

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    67

    1:30:21.892

    China

    19/10/2008

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    56

    1:31:57.403

    Brazil

    02/11/2008

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    71

    1:34:11.435


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2007/

    2007 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    18/03/2007

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    58

    1:25:28.770

    Malaysia

    08/04/2007

    Fernando Alonso

    McLaren-Mercedes

    56

    1:32:14.930

    Bahrain

    15/04/2007

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    57

    1:33:27.515

    Spain

    13/05/2007

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    65

    1:31:36.230

    Monaco

    27/05/2007

    Fernando Alonso

    McLaren-Mercedes

    78

    1:40:29.329

    Canada

    10/06/2007

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:44:11.292

    United States

    17/06/2007

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    73

    1:31:09.965

    France

    01/07/2007

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    70

    1:30:54.200

    Great Britain

    08/07/2007

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    59

    1:21:43.074

    Europe

    22/07/2007

    Fernando Alonso

    McLaren-Mercedes

    60

    2:06:26.358

    Hungary

    05/08/2007

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:35:52.991

    Turkey

    26/08/2007

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    58

    1:26:42.161

    Italy

    09/09/2007

    Fernando Alonso

    McLaren-Mercedes

    53

    1:18:37.806

    Belgium

    16/09/2007

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    44

    1:20:39.066

    Japan

    30/09/2007

    Lewis Hamilton

    McLaren-Mercedes

    67

    2:00:34.579

    China

    07/10/2007

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    56

    1:37:58.395

    Brazil

    21/10/2007

    Kimi Räikkönen

    Ferrari

    71

    1:28:15.270

    Note – McLaren stripped of all 2007 constructors’ points after being found in breach of International Sporting Code through possession of confidential Ferrari data.


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2006/

    2006 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Bahrain

    12/03/2006

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    57

    1:29:46.205

    Malaysia

    19/03/2006

    Giancarlo Fisichella

    Renault

    56

    1:30:40.529

    Australia

    02/04/2006

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    57

    1:34:27.870

    San Marino

    23/04/2006

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    62

    1:31:06.486

    Europe

    07/05/2006

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    60

    1:35:58.765

    Spain

    14/05/2006

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    66

    1:26:21.759

    Monaco

    28/05/2006

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    78

    1:43:43.116

    Great Britain

    11/06/2006

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    60

    1:25:51.927

    Canada

    25/06/2006

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    70

    1:34:37.308

    United States

    02/07/2006

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    73

    1:34:35.199

    France

    16/07/2006

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    70

    1:32:07.803

    Germany

    30/07/2006

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    67

    1:27:51.693

    Hungary

    06/08/2006

    Jenson Button

    Honda

    70

    1:52:20.941

    Turkey

    27/08/2006

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    58

    1:28:51.082

    Italy

    10/09/2006

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    53

    1:14:51.975

    China

    01/10/2006

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    56

    1:37:32.747

    Japan

    08/10/2006

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    53

    1:23:53.413

    Brazil

    22/10/2006

    Felipe Massa

    Ferrari

    71

    1:31:53.751


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2005/

    2005 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    06/03/2005

    Giancarlo Fisichella

    Renault

    57

    1:24:17.336

    Malaysia

    20/03/2005

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    56

    1:31:33.736

    Bahrain

    03/04/2005

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    57

    1:29:18.531

    San Marino

    24/04/2005

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    62

    1:27:41.921

    Spain

    08/05/2005

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    66

    1:27:16.830

    Monaco

    22/05/2005

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    78

    1:45:15.556

    Europe

    29/05/2005

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    59

    1:31:46.648

    Canada

    12/06/2005

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:32.09.290

    United States

    19/06/2005

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    73

    1:29:43.181

    France

    03/07/2005

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    70

    1:31:22.233

    Great Britain

    10/07/2005

    Juan Pablo Montoya

    McLaren-Mercedes

    60

    1:24:29.588

    Germany

    24/07/2005

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    67

    1:26:28.599

    Hungary

    31/07/2005

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    70

    1:37:25.552

    Turkey

    21/08/2005

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    58

    1:24:34.454

    Italy

    04/09/2005

    Juan Pablo Montoya

    McLaren-Mercedes

    53

    1:14:28.659

    Belgium

    11/09/2005

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    44

    1:30:01.295

    Brazil

    25/09/2005

    Juan Pablo Montoya

    McLaren-Mercedes

    71

    1:29:20.574

    Japan

    09/10/2005

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    53

    1:29:02.212

    China

    16/10/2005

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    56

    1:39:53.618


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2004/

    2004 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    07/03/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    58

    1:24:15.757

    Malaysia

    21/03/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    56

    1:31:07.490

    Bahrain

    04/04/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    57

    1:28:34.875

    San Marino

    25/04/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    62

    1:26:19.670

    Spain

    09/05/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    66

    1:27:32.841

    Monaco

    23/05/2004

    Jarno Trulli

    Renault

    77

    1:45:46.601

    Europe

    30/05/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    60

    1:32:35.101

    Canada

    13/06/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    70

    1:28:24.803

    United States

    20/06/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    73

    1:40:29.914

    France

    04/07/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    70

    1:30:18.133

    Great Britain

    11/07/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    60

    1:24:42.700

    Germany

    25/07/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    66

    1:23:54.848

    Hungary

    15/08/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    70

    1:35:26.131

    Belgium

    29/08/2004

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    44

    1:32:35.274

    Italy

    12/09/2004

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    53

    1:15:18.448

    China

    26/09/2004

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    56

    1:29:12.420

    Japan

    10/10/2004

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    53

    1:24:26.985

    Brazil

    24/10/2004

    Juan Pablo Montoya

    Williams-BMW

    71

    1:28:01.451

    Points for top eight finishers (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1)


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2003/

    2003 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    09/03/2003

    David Coulthard

    McLaren-Mercedes

    58

    1:34:42.124

    Malaysia

    23/03/2003

    Kimi Räikkönen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    56

    1:32:22.195

    Brazil

    06/04/2003

    Giancarlo Fisichella

    Jordan-Ford

    54

    1:31:17.748

    San Marino

    20/04/2003

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    62

    1:28:12.058

    Spain

    04/05/2003

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    65

    1:33:46.933

    Austria

    18/05/2003

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    69

    1:24:04.888

    Monaco

    01/06/2003

    Juan Pablo Montoya

    Williams-BMW

    78

    1:42:19.010

    Canada

    15/06/2003

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    70

    1:31:13.591

    Europe

    29/06/2003

    Ralf Schumacher

    Williams-BMW

    60

    1:34:43.622

    France

    06/07/2003

    Ralf Schumacher

    Williams-BMW

    70

    1:30:49.213

    Great Britain

    20/07/2003

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    60

    1:28:37.554

    Germany

    03/08/2003

    Juan Pablo Montoya

    Williams-BMW

    67

    1:28:48.769

    Hungary

    24/08/2003

    Fernando Alonso

    Renault

    70

    1:39:01.460

    Italy

    14/09/2003

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    53

    1:14:19.838

    United States

    28/09/2003

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    73

    1:33:35.997

    Japan

    12/10/2003

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    53

    1:25:11.743

    New points system introduced – points for top eight finishers (10, 8, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1)


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2002/

    2002 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    03/03/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    58

    1:35’36.792

    Malaysia

    17/03/2002

    Ralf Schumacher

    Williams-BMW

    56

    1:34’12.912

    Brazil

    31/03/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    71

    1:31’43.663

    San Marino

    14/04/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    62

    1:29’10.789

    Spain

    28/04/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    65

    1:30’29.981

    Austria

    12/05/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    71

    1:33’51.562

    Monaco

    26/05/2002

    David Coulthard

    McLaren-Mercedes

    78

    1:45’39.055

    Canada

    09/06/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    70

    1:33’36.111

    Europe

    23/06/2002

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    60

    1:35’07.426

    Great Britain

    07/07/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    60

    1:31’45.015

    France

    21/07/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    72

    1:32’09.837

    Germany

    28/07/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    67

    1:27’52.078

    Hungary

    18/08/2002

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    77

    1:41’49.001

    Belgium

    01/09/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    44

    1:21’20.634

    Italy

    15/09/2002

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    53

    1:16’19.982

    United States

    29/09/2002

    Rubens Barrichello

    Ferrari

    73

    1:31’07.934

    Japan

    13/10/2002

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    53

    1:26’59.698

    Points for top six finishers (10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1). Last season with this points system.


    http://origin.formula1.com/results/season/2001/

    2001 FIA Formula One World Championship™

    Grand Prix

    Date

    Winning Driver

    Team

    Laps

    Time

    Australia

    04/03/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    58

    1:38’265.33

    Malaysia

    18/03/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    55

    1:47’34.801

    Brazil

    01/04/2001

    David Coulthard

    McLaren-Mercedes

    71

    1:39’00.834

    San Marino

    15/04/2001

    Ralf Schumacher

    Williams-BMW

    62

    1:30’44.817

    Spain

    29/04/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    65

    1:31’03.305

    Austria

    13/05/2001

    David Coulthard

    McLaren-Mercedes

    71

    1:27’45.927

    Monaco

    27/05/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    78

    1:47’22.561

    Canada

    10/06/2001

    Ralf Schumacher

    Williams-BMW

    69

    1:34’31.522

    Europe

    24/06/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    67

    1:29’42.724

    France

    01/07/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    72

    1:33’35.636

    Great Britain

    15/07/2001

    Mika Hakkinen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    60

    1:25’33.770

    Germany

    29/07/2001

    Ralf Schumacher

    Williams-BMW

    45

    1:18’17.873

    Hungary

    19/08/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    77

    1:41’49.675

    Belgium

    02/09/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    36

    1:08’05.002

    Italy

    16/09/2001

    Juan Pablo Montoya

    Williams-BMW

    53

    1:16’58.493

    United States

    30/09/2001

    Mika Hakkinen

    McLaren-Mercedes

    73

    1:32’42.840

    Japan

    14/10/2001

    Michael Schumacher

    Ferrari

    53

    1:27’33.298

    Points for top six finishers (10, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1)


    http://www.ubs.com/microsites/formula-1/en/home.html

    A Global Partner of Formula 1™

    Welcome to the UBS Microsite on F1. As a Global Partner of Formula 1™, we’re pleased to bring to you a range of content that explains the sport and its rules and offers interesting insights. UBS and Formula 1 share a keen interest in strategy: planning ahead, making clear decisions and managing change are as vital to succeeding in a closely fought Grand Prix as they are in banking.

    Uncompromising attention to detail, flawless execution and a constant effort to improve make the difference between winners and losers on the race track. The obsession to perfect what is already good drives Formula 1 teams to constantly innovate and relentlessly improve. At UBS, we take this attitude as a great inspiration.

    Achieving our firm’s vision of becoming the choice of clients worldwide demands nothing less than being better at what we do than anyone else. It ensures that “We will not rest” until we’ve found the best solutions for each and every client. This is the attitude we share with Formula 1.


    http://www.ubs.com/2/e/perspectives_asia/v13/UBS-Insead.html

    Giving Back: UBS-INSEAD chart the rise of family philanthropy in Asia

    Driven by its phenomenal economic growth, Asia has undergone fundamental changes over the past two decades. Self-made entrepreneurs have forged their fortunes out of their drive and determination, yet many people in the region still face enormous social and economic challenges.

    In this environment, Asia’s wealthy have displayed a renewed interest in philanthropy. A joint study on family philanthropy by UBS with leading Singapore business school, INSEAD, shows that Asia’s wealthy engage in philanthropy primarily to ensure the continuity of core family values and to create a lasting legacy in areas such as health and education.

    Younger and second-generation philanthropists are showing increased support for the arts and the environment, and a global mindset. Despite the changes taking place in Asia, Kathryn Shih, CEO of UBS Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, believes that some things continue to stay the same.

    “An enduring feature is the status of the family as the primary building block of Asian societies coupled with an exceptionally strong sense of responsibility towards the well-being of future generations.” The political and economic transformation of Asia has created vastly different approaches to tradition and modernity among successive generations.

    In this environment, philanthropy has become a source of both cross-generational cohesion and dialogue between young and old. Typically, older generations regard the local community as its primary responsibility, while the younger generation is prone to adopt a more international focus. And while the older generation views giving as an end in itself, the younger generation tends to be more inclined to measure the impact of their giving.

    Despite the change in outlook, families tend to give most to their home country (70% of family giving is directed to national-level causes), to the country they emigrated from, or to their own ethnic or socio-linguistic communities. However, as Mahboob Mahmood, INSEAD’s Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship and Family Enterprise, points out this can sometimes mean less advantaged regions are neglected.

    Given the importance of education amongst Asian cultures, it is little surprise that educational causes receive the lion’s share of philanthropic giving (36% in 2010), followed by poverty alleviation and development (10%) and health (9%). In addition, Laurence Lien, Chairman of the Lien Foundation, said at the UBS-INSEAD Study’s launch:

    “The younger members are much more into social entrepreneurship, social enterprise and (they are) socially responsible as well. I think you want to get them involved and at least allocate some of the philanthropic dollars to these cutting-edge areas.”

    While philanthropy is an age-old tradition in Asia, structured family philanthropy is a relatively new phenomenon. Of the 200 initiatives surveyed, more than 75% were established as formal philanthropies since 1980, while around 45% of funding for regional philanthropic initiatives now comes from first-generation businesses.

    To have a sustained, transformational impact, the study concludes that family philanthropy in the region requires a sharpened, strategic focus, and a more collaborative and professional approach towards implementation. Success will depend on the families’ ability to accommodate the aspirations and contributions of different generations and family members.

    When done properly, the effects can change lives. “Successful families across Asia have the potential to exert a transformational impact on the social, economic and environmental challenges facing the continent,” said Dipak C. Jain, Dean of INSEAD.

    As one of the leading service providers to Ultra High Net Worth (UHNW) clients worldwide, UBS is active in philanthropy advisory through its dedicated Philanthropy & Values-Based Investing team. To find out more about philanthropy, strategic charitable giving, and investing with social impact, contact your UBS advisor or go to http://www.ubs.com/philanthropy

    L–R: David Evans, Head of Philanthropy & Values Based Investing, Asia Pacific, UBS; Chew Kwee San, Honorary Secretary & Council Member, Tan Chin Tuan Foundation; Laurence Lien, Chairman of Lien Foundation; Jenny Santi, Head of Philanthropy Services, Southeast Asia, UBS; Dipak C. Jain, Dean, INSEAD; Peter Kok, Managing Director & Regional Market Manager, Singapore & Malaysia, UBS; and Mahboob Mahmood, Adjunct Professor of Entrepreneurship & Family Enterprise, INSEAD, at the launch of the study.

    Drawing on more than 200 surveys and 100 in-depth interviews with UHNW individuals and families across 10 countries, the UBS- INSEAD Study on Family Philanthropy in Asia is the most comprehensive study on the philanthropic aspirations of Asian families yet undertaken and reveals dynamic change and growth in the region.

    Published in August 2011, it reveals that while geography and culture continue to be important factors in attitudes towards philanthropy, a clear difference in approach between the first and subsequent generations of Asia’s wealthy is also emerging. A prevailing constant is the centrality of the family unit to the concept and practice of philanthropy in Asia.

    “This seminal study, compiled with our partners at INSEAD, fills the void of information about Asian family philanthropy, and offers unparalleled insight into the aspirations and challenges faced by Asia’s philanthropists,” said Kathryn Shih, CEO of UBS Wealth Management, Asia Pacific.

    Dr. Yusuf Hamied, Chairman, Cipta: “Success does not make a company great. What really matters is its contribution towards making life better for everyone.”

    Kathryn Shih, CEO of UBS Wealth Management, Asia Pacific, “Family philanthropy has had a long and distinguished history among Asia’s wealthy. By bringing together Asian best practices and advising strategies for effective and sustainable giving, UBS is placed to provide the platform for them to create lasting impact.”

    Mrs. Margaret Lien, Governor Emeritus, Lien Foundation, “Family philanthropy is really the glue that holds different generations together. You see the mindset transfer from generation to generation and in my experience, that can only bring you closer.”


    http://www.ubs.com/id/en/wealth_management.html

    Welcome to UBS in Indonesia

    Last modified on 27 Nov 2011, 07:56

    For information about UBS, please contact our Representative Office in Indonesia. UBS Representative Office Jakarta

    Address:           Wisma GKBI, Suite 2202, Jalan Jend. Sudirman No. 28, Jakarta 10210
    Telephone:        +62-21-574 1818
    Facsimile:         +62-21-574 0202

    Imagine a global financial firm with the heart and soul of a two-person organization. A world-leading wealth management company that sits down with you to understand your needs and goals. An award winning global investment bank and premier global asset management business dedicated to giving you the most personal attention at every level.


    http://www.ubs.com/id/en.html

    UBS in Indonesia: Products and Services, Contacts & Branches

    Last modified on 23 Feb 2012, 20:22

    UBS AG Jakarta Representative Office in Indonesia is not a licensed bank or branch operating in Indonesia under the applicable banking and capital market regulations and does not provide any banking or capital market activities in Indonesia.

    The products, services, information and/or materials contained within these web pages may not be available for residents of certain jurisdictions. Please consult the sales restrictions relating to the products or services in question for further information.


    http://www.ubs.com/id/en/homepage/overlays/ubs-in-indonesia.html

    UBS in Indonesia

    Our profile

    Headquartered in Zurich and Basel, UBS is a global firm providing financial services to private, corporate and institutional clients. We are present in all major financial centers and have offices in over 50 countries.

    In Indonesia, we have shareholdings in a locally licensed securities company, PT UBS Securities Indonesia. Explore our site to learn what we offer in Indonesia. UBS AG also has a representative office in Jakarta. It closely monitors developments in the Indonesian market, conducts general marketing activities and acts as a point of contact for UBS AG in Indonesia.

    Services in Indonesia

    1. Corporates & institutions
    2. UBS Investment Bank, http://www.ubs.com/global/en/investment-bank.html
    3. Investment Bank Client Portal, https://clientlogin.ibb.ubs.com/login?_URI=aHR0cDovL2NsaWVudHBvcnRhbC5pYmIudWJzLmNvbS9wb3J0YWwvaW5kZXguaHRtP3BhZ2U9aG9tZQ==

    http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/a-formula-one-ipo-pros-and-cons/


    The Street Talkers: The Sidewalk Talks over Formula One’s IPO

    201204250928

    Wilson Laidlaw, on April 25, 2012 at 09:28

    I look forward to reading the weasel words in the prospectus, which I hope someone will put online somewhere. Joe if you hear of it being available anywhere, a heads up would be appreciated. Wilson

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 15:45

    Being Bernie’s Advocate, but how many non weasely prospectii can you recall?!! I must brush up on the rules in more detail, but if you follow the link below, 17.4.11 seems to allow exemption from prospectus if all sold to institutions. So might have to keep an eye your pension fund is not stuffed with CVC’s IOUs.

    But 17.4.12 allows the authority to revoke that exemption in public interest. Maybe we should keep an eye out, and write in if nothing appears. Chap whose blog I find always thorough and enlightening, John Hempton short sells for his fund, and might love this*. http://www.singaporelaw.sg/content/CorporateFinance.html

    *not affiliated in any way, nor even a correspondent with Hempton. Just a very rare example of someone writing how you tear to shreds false claims for a living. His recent “Daddy you are more evil than I thought” piece is almost classic as to the twisted moral values one has to juggle, and has sealed my admiration for him. Admiration aside, if we want to complain if there’s no prospectus, there’s someone to ask help.

    Wilson Laidlaw, on April 25, 2012 at 18:47

    John, There’s weasely and then there’s really weasely weasely. I know which category I think the CVC IPO prospectus would fall into. I don’t know what their bonds are currently rated at – does anyone? Wilson

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 20:52

    Hi Wilson, is there a point beyond which the English language may be tortured further, or is there a kind of event horizon, a short sharp permanent occlusion of meaning, a fracture failure of intelligibility? Of course, some say I pass that point somewhat too frequently in my comments, but ..

    I am not sure if their bonds received a rating, thinking about the current replacement ones. Feels like dodgy dentistry, fixerupper finance, not remedy to the caries fissure. When I speak with my buddy later, I’ll demand he looks up the CUSIP on his B’berg see if anything. Think my guess was not wrong, though, that this float is a required “out” for that fresh finance.

    I know what you mean, of course, it being a matter of degrees. If there is a prospectus, I reckon our crowd of readers here had better peruse it strictly in company trained in the Heimlich Maneuver . . sorry to be childish, trying to prove my cynic’s credentials. I think the way to get attention paid to this is because somewhere, buried deep in an inaccessible vault, will be the most twisted of instruments that is worthy of academic study.

    I plain don’t have a clue how they are going to get this written up, but it is tantalising, like awaiting a Roger Corman flick, he the king of B- movies. . . come to think of it, IIRC he was producer on that Singapore screener i mention below . . . best from me – j

    PeterF, on April 25, 2012 at 09:43

    Joe, do you think that the listing would be more successful if BE appeared, to the world outside of F1, to be less of a loose cannon, or would a business-world perception simply be that he knows what he’s doing?

    Steve Selasky, on April 25, 2012 at 09:53

    Interesting. Do you have an opinion on what/who a successor to Bernie Eccelestone might look like?

    Jerry, on April 25, 2012 at 11:56

    “Après moi, le déluge”?

    Steve, on April 25, 2012 at 21:18

    Good one.

    Roger, on April 25, 2012 at 10:14

    I would have thought that the listing in Asia was largely an attempt to avoid some of the disclosure requirements of European or US bourses.

    CTP, on April 25, 2012 at 14:05

    or maybe that all the money is in asia nowadays as the old west becomes the new third world!

    Roger, on April 25, 2012 at 15:51

    If someone with money wants to own a part of F1, the location of the listing is largely irrelevant.

    Sinha_j, on April 25, 2012 at 10:24

    I dont think this should be described as a Formula One IPO but rather “CVC exploits F1 to the max and then cashes-in and leaves the teams to bear the cost of funding the debts created by CVC exploiting the F1 brand”.

    Snowman, on April 25, 2012 at 10:28

    I hope Mercedes does take legal action instead of letting Ecclestone push them around any way he wants like most of the other teams.

    Rpaco, on April 25, 2012 at 10:54

    This 20% is presumably the holding of the financial giant LBL (15.3%) which is now in administration, (plus a bit possibly from Churchill [0.7%] and/or JPMW [3%]). (Going by the layout Joe included in his blog about a year ago.) Thus actually mainly not CVC but the US administrator who is selling.

    So could this be a smokescreen, a means of hiding that a part of F1 is being offered in a “Fire Sale”. Or did CVC already buy the LBL share back from the administrator? If so for how much and how did they jump the queue? This must go very much against Bernie’s instincts because he does like to be in total control and not answerable to anyone.

    I cannot see this as a public offering, it must end up as a private purchase. The only benefit of it being an IPO that I can see is the dilution of share power, since it is rare that shareholders act in concert. As for Bernie’s replacement, it is unlikely we shall find anyone like him, a “dealaholic” a conjurer, a thinker so far outside the box, that he bought the box and sold it several times over.

    Both hard as nails and a fantastic friend (to the few). Whilst it may be possible to replace him, it would not be the same. I used to despise his apparent obsession with making money until I read a couple of his biographies and realised that it was not about the money but the deal, the money was a by product though often the means by which the success of the deal was measured, but it was out-thinking the opposition that mattered.

    Canehan, on April 25, 2012 at 14:42

    It is the deal, but new drivers have appeared over the years. When in an interview some 40 years ago I asked Bernie what motivated him, his reply was : “If I do a deal with someone, even if it is for only two quid, I want him to pay me a quid more than he wanted to.” However, when I asked him some 20 years later if that was still the motivation, he said :”Now, I don’t want to see something I have built up, torn down.” I suspect the motivation of the deal was still there, too. (Quotes approximate).

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 17:15

    I am driven to ask, then, if all that was built up, is based on the extra quid, and therefore built upon unhappy money? My theory being what is of ultimate value is created from that which freely given. Thank you Canehan, for your recollection and vignette and plain expression. So much more of that is needed.

    The financial foundation of the system, squeezed, would therefore have failed my late partner’s “is it any good?” test after not more than two or three iterations. It is almost frightening to try to unravel what is going on and has passed, because like Robert De Niro’s character in Brazil, (Tuttle/Buttle) do we see the man (the people of F1) suffocated by papers and struggle to free him (them) only to discover the man has disappeared?

    Martin Collyer, on April 25, 2012 at 11:56

    Joe. It used to be the case that the F.I.A. held a, “Golden Share”, if that is the right term. This enabled the F.I.A. to block a transfer of, “right to exploit the commercial rights of F1″ to a person or organisation deemed to be unsuitable. Is that “Golden Share” still valid? If so, could it be exercised to prevent this I.P.O.? Who knows where this 20 percent could end up? Martin

    Joe Saward, on April 25, 2012 at 12:35

    The FIA, I believe, still has the right to veto a change of ownership, but selling 20 percent of the business would not qualify as that.

    Karen, on April 25, 2012 at 14:32

    Mr E. has the ‘Golden Share’ which gives him the casting vote at board meetings. The FIA and its president has a right of veto if they consider any potential purchaser to be inappropriate. This is because the FIA still owns the commercial rights to F1, they have only leased them out.

    ASAPASPAAPSA, on April 25, 2012 at 15:46

    Only in Formula 1.

    Rpaco, on April 25, 2012 at 16:52

    “Mr E. has the ‘Golden Share’ which gives him the casting vote at board meetings.” According to Mr C. Sylt he lost that the last time the business was sold, ie to CVC. as part of the conditions of the sale. I had a protracted “misunderstanding” with him on JA’s blog last year in which he made it clear that the previous “My vote beats all of yours” had been given up, I was wrong and knew nothing.

    (which of course is often the case, but Mr Sylt seems to claim inside knowledge of and access to the workings of F1, thus had some credibility, as he also claims with his partner to be the only journalists to write about F1 finances)

    Karen, on April 25, 2012 at 19:04

    Not correct. The investment and shareholders agreement confers special rights to the single share (golden Share) in Delta Prefco, which include the casting vote at board meetings. There are 6 share holders, Mr.E, CVC, Lehman Brothers, Bambino, JP Morgan and Churchill Capital. Maybe Christain was thinking a casting vote in Delta Topco, which Mr.E doesn’t have.

    Martin Collyer, on April 26, 2012 at 08:49

    Karen. So, just to be clear, is the single share(golden share) the casting vote in the event of a 3-3 vote at Delta Prefco? Or is it, as Rpaco suggests above, a “My vote beats all of yours”, i.e. a veto? Further question, if this 20% I.P.O. is really a private deal, (or an IPO to preferred buyers) as Rpaco and others have suggested, at what point can the FIA step in and exercise their right of veto?

    CVC could potentially do another IPO for a further 20-ish % next year and a few more % the year after that and the ownership of the lease to exploit the commercial rights has changed hands. Martin

    Rpaco, on April 26, 2012 at 08:53

    Since at the time as far as I knew Delta Topco was the highest layer then Mr Sylt was undoubtedly referring to that. Ah, I knew there would be a way around Bernie loosing that! Just add yet another layer with the golden share restored. Presumably Delta Prefco owns Delta Topco. Thanks Karen, that alters things considerably.

    What has happened to Lehman Bros vote? Since they are in administration presumably this has become the property of PWC (who have just notched up $500m in fees) Can their vote be exercised in the administrator’s name? I now note that my earlier guess (above) is likely to be verified in that it is not CVC selling part of F1 but the LBL administrator, PWC and the figure of 20% is just approximate. (and should read 15.3%)

    I quote Mr Sylt from the Guardian 7th March: “The collapsed US bank Lehman Brothers has committed itself to cashing in its stake in Formula One motor racing within two years, according to documents released as part of the ongoing unwinding of the company. The stake is expected to yield a $1.5bn (£950m) payout to Lehman’s creditors, who are owed $450bn.”

    This comes from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/mar/07/lehman-brothers-to-sell-formula-one-stake. Would you care to advise where the “20% to be floated” is coming from, if not LBL, maybe CVC is lobbing in 4.7% or was I right in my earlier post? (@10:54)

    Matt, on April 26, 2012 at 09:30

    FT article today suggests “Mr Brabeck-Letmathe will take the chairmanship if the flotation proceeds, which is pencilled in for June and which is expected to offer up to 30 per cent of shares to investors.” The IPO is to refinance the acquisition loan and “Although CVC has previously said it had no plans to use proceeds from the float to pay a dividend, it is understood that up to $1bn could be returned to shareholders.”

    Further, “CVC bought a majority stake in F1 in 2006 for $1.7bn. It has twice before refinanced its debt and it is seeking to reduce the size of loans to £2.3bn and extend their maturity dates to 2017 and 2018.” http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b4306c70-8f08-11e1-aa12-00144feab49a.html#axzz1t8KRlmtx for full article (although you may have to be registered (although it may be free for a trial)).

    Rpaco, on April 26, 2012 at 12:54

    Yes I have just read it, interestingly it talks about Delta Topco, however Karen has now revealed the existence of Delta Prefco, which throws another tangle in the F1 ownership web. 22 companies in at least 4 countries and probably several more. Then there’s the GP2 side with another seven companies. It gets more difficult to see exactly what is being floated and by whom.

    John (Other John), on April 28, 2012 at 14:16

    I can find reference to Prefco in documents from Lehman’s UK insolvency dating back at least 3 years, with a quick dumb search. So how come we have overlooked it for so long? I think Karen means Prefco holds the golden share, simple as that. I’m inclined to believe Karen, though I gripe she could be more forthcoming, as would befit someone involved in a public flotation.

    But as I pointed out, this may be a stock exchange flotation, but there may be no need of anything to be public. Plus, one might expect all to go quiet, according to the usual rules, for a period before trading begins. Prefco begs more scrutiny. Anyhow the existence of Prefco clearly has been known to the insolvency crew at Lehman and hence no doubt much elsewhere, for a fair while.

    Mr. Sylt sheepishly says he overlooked it accidentally, in a article last year. But we know he’s a preferred Bernie conduit, tend to ignore him. I’m far more concerned however as to why our crowd here missed it. I feel like I’ve been handed the dunce’s cap, for one. My week has been so topsy-turvey the only consistent feature of these recent days has been a lengthening beard.

    So not gotten around to hassling my buddy to help me with some database digging. I shall have to do my usual: cook up an epic sunday lunch, whisk that over to his office, and monopolize his terminals and leech his culinarily fortified renewed brainpower.. Yeah, open all hours, my pals.

    No slouches. Actually I think I had better prepare for camping out because i never started on my database jaunt to virtually visit Mauritius. Some guys may have their journalistic “sources”, ahem, but I find home cooking has a powerful effect when you want honest help and straight talk! (more men in business should try this, especially if you are in a typically macho environment.

    I promise you it’s effective to get across sensible talk, stop everyone measuring their you know whats) I tend to think that conspiracy theory is a bit of a waste of time, in analyzing companies. Or qualifying that, conspiracy theory seems to play out far more often with smaller outfits than expensively administered high profile setups.

    Still, despite I take Karen always at face value, there’s more to understand here. Lesson learned by me today: I should not ever put off any research, even if like this it is for our enjoyment, not work. You get rusty.

    Rpaco, on April 28, 2012 at 18:26

    This carries most of the story http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_print_article.php?fes_art_id=43560

    Joe Saward, on April 29, 2012 at 07:48

    Written by Bernie Ecclestone’s PR department…

    Rpaco, on April 29, 2012 at 08:45

    But nonetheless reveals the dangers for anyone buying anything from Bernie. Are you actually buying what you thought you were? In this case buying shares in Delta Topco is useless as I suspected.

    John (Other John), on April 29, 2012 at 14:04

    i thought you would have recognized my cynicism as to that article, rpaco. I was actually describing what I thought of it, across several paras! It’s not a helpful thing to read. Not only because it’s just print out from Bernie’s Super Secret Hotline Prime Source Telex, but because as usual with the author, it simply goes nowhere.

    I think his job is to write supposed revelations at about the time they become sensitive to Bernie, and do his darnedest to obfuscate any significance by attributing all manner of invented illogic thereto. He does a smothering job. Not very well, I might add. Why actual newspapers carry his articles, I have no idea.

    They have real reason to feel squeamish about this man’s writing and overt absence of neutrality. Unfortunately, it’s a bitch of a world in advertising, and most editors are poodles. I screamed blue murder at “advertorial” carried in trade rags when I was 17. That was blatant stuff, and being blatant, almost tolerable.

    But that was plenty enough to get my back up as a boy: I really overreacted, but not as bad as what later i quickly got to see. When you joke am i the butcher the baker, the candlestick maker, rpaco, well you see I had to learn all that to save my backside once i set out to professionally get the hump with bent advertising influences.

    One day soon I hope you’ll see it all clear as day – or maybe the fastest burning momentary light, as i re-enter earth’s orbit and crash. (I may therefore have to direct you the right azimuth, in case you miss it. I am realistic how slim my chances.) My beef is not with Mr Sylt, but with how pernicious the promise of a big ad campaign can be to editorial integrity.

    That’s also why I cling to here, like I’ve no home to go to, because it’s not every day you find somewhere that straight talks. For me, this place is golden rocking horse doo. Those who tried to argue otherwise (TF relation, and supposed biases) sadly were without realizing it being hypocritical.

    Because they were implying and assumption that far more famous and supposedly notable journals do not swoon and toss out their ethical playbook when the ad man cometh. If anything, I feel for Mr Sylt, as I think he has played Leperello so long as to have become his master, and he I suspect could do better by more honestly playing his games my side of the fence.

    Not my side as in with me, please note. Just I think that there is a sadness that befalls people when they maintain mixed up lives. Just lately, I have become sensitive to the parables right in front of me, in people I meet. I see so acutely, recently, that whoever maintains a conflicted position in life also seems to have had a poor lot, and unfortunate experiences.

    I was brought up by religious people, one of whom attempted to redirect that influence to philosophy and agnosticism, but lately I cannot help but keep seeing the desperate ill effect upon those who are not true to their own self. I have been surprised how much of the scriptures which mean to ward off mistakes in life, are alive before me.

    I reckon that’s fair since the good books were written from long experience, and one can keep notion of any God out of it, as the books were meant to provide a guide to daily life. But anyhow, I’ve been really taken aback and shook up. I do in fact think it is a moral thing, to write about how a large body of people are perceived.

    Consequently I believe it is amoral to to tell porkies which mess around in anything which can affect those people. If you claim affinity to a tribe called F1, what are you doing trying to turn it into a plaything? “Oh, sorry, I knew about this years ago, and overlooked it. Oops, sorry” is about the intro to that article, how I read it.

    Right. So how did that not strike the author as important, first time around? I’m serious I have no beef with that Mr Sylt. I wish him no ill, in fact the opposite. I’m no saint, but no writer is going to even register on my scale of being personally offended. (It’s the opposite, actually, press media authors can only go up in my estimation)

    But he should start to consider that the last thing the F1 peoples need now, is more shhh stirring and half truths. Anything further, I think I should write to the man, directly, proper old fashioned letter. Because anything more I might say should be said direct, and not be construed as anonymous adhominem.

    The rest of this is my observations personally of life, not a crack at Mr Sylt. I hope by now you guys trust me I am not beating up on anyone nor do i ever have such inclinations. Or if I have such, I do not indulge them. This is not meant as any defense of any writer or journalist, but just the tempering side of my thoughts: maybe I would take the Ecclestone Shilling, myself, if that was necessary for my family.

    I think I’d be a lot smarter about it, though. And it would have to be “FU bread”. And then I’d accept my living purgatory only on narrow grounds. But maybe I would do it. You don’t ever know what pain exists in someone else’s life that they may seek to assuage by taking a rotten job.

    I don’t propose this as a scenario for who we talk about, or proffer what I say as mitigation, because I have no knowledge. Just an example that I could see myself making certain choices. If my mother was prognosed with something really bad, for example, I’d scramble everything to get her care, in an instant and without hesitation.

    Yet the type who sell out quick, sell everything in a fire sale, never get anything they want or need. Nor ever can raise their price. You don’t need to consider Faust to understand this. Petty cheats everywhere have to justify themselves forever because they are only conning themselves and so have to forever sell themselves again, and fib and fib.

    Forgive me, I have been deeply affected by finally learning the story of a friend – still a friend – who is a living example of this purgatory. He took to telephoning me far too often in recent weeks, just acting lost. His life is a horror story, but it only showed itself to me when i became his “last friend”.

    There’s so much anger in him, it’s almost unbearable, but okay, I have to react some way, and the whole pitch of it is him begging not to be discarded any more. Someone who everyone wonders why it all goes wrong for him and is inclined to blame others. But the close contact I have had, because i was it seems that last resort to speak to, has unraveled a very simple moral tale. No specifics will be spoken.

    Just that I really see now that deceit is the most cruel of human failings. Well, I read that as a boy in the Bible. I just never had it hit home with example, before. I’m still in shock, because I now see this same story unfolding everywhere I look. I believe in man, not God, in the sense that it is the next man who can change your life, or show you the way, or pick you up from a fall.

    I really care not for religion. Just about being around good people. But how many define themselves as good people, and expect you to take them on trust? Well, that is probably everyone. If you really are a reporter, being true to oneself is the most fundamental of qualities.

    Not some ethics guidebook handed out in “media studies” class, it has to be an innate quality. Con yourself, con everyone. Once you think you can con, that cons you, and the slide begins. I would get too upset to type the smallest vignette of what i have learned are consequences of that.

    It must be obvious why I write, or I hope it is, because I wish in another scene, through some other way, I could offer a hand to a writer who seems to have lost his directions to Damascus. If you treat the world harshly, maybe that is all you can expect. But all of life depends on each of us confounding that expectation.

    Keeping a copy of this, because it really is too much for a F1 blog. I might be better to weave this in in simpler precis, but at least it’s all in one draft I can cut and paste to my notebook. I just recently got seriously concerned that everyone in the sport is being compromised and affected by the nonsense talk, propaganda and twisting in the media, the lack of facts and honesty.

    I am angry at myself I could have done some simple digging in the databases, which I am off to do a bit later now. The problem I see is that all the mainstream coverage of F1 is too cynical, has no connexion and no care. It’s just a column inches versus advert yield equation. Maybe this is just my plea to all the other lot who write about F1 out there, to bang their heads together and realize that it could very well be, this sport is being sold yet again under everyone’s eyes, and that a chance to fix this may not come for another decade, or even at all.

    Once those shares are on the market, as long as ZIRP persists, they will keep going up, rocketing the nominal value beyond any semi-sane pursuer or lobby of interests to acquire it. I’d rather it pass through fickle hands of crackers billionaires, than what I sense is a final lockup,

    I mean lock OUT, of anyone who could do a thing and mean it. I feel they are finally ensuring F1 is out of reach of anyone who care or is involved in it. I do hope I am wrong. But the reason I started all this, is because every journalist – no matter who – who lives writing about F1 should lift their standards and start wondering what is going on.

    I think if the media who live off F1 do not get involved now, and get paying attention to this, they are ultimately stifling themselves and risking the whole game. Maybe I mean this as some kind of call to arms. I don’t care who it is who gets the straight story on these financial shenanigans, but there has to be more than Joe out there telling the story, to get enough attention.

    I am fearful for the sport I love and at the best of times, think it appalling for journalists to snipe at each-other. But at this minute, I believe all eyes must be focused on the true issue, which is what is being sold, how, why, who are the real players, and how do we stop a bunch of juvenile but technically talented bankers buggering up the circus for everyone?

    Is that not enough common interest at stake? Or are some journalists going to carry on with their pretenses and keep regurgitating corrupted lines? Rivalries should not be a part of this, nor differences in education, nor social influences or proximity to Prince’s Gate. This may be the first time I put together in one argument all that bothers me in F1 now, only excluding the sponsorship worries, which be a whole other issue.

    I think also I managed to explain why i think so much about all this, despite it is not even close to my making a living. Why I spend so much time here anyway. I have no plot or plan or manifesto (okay, my race calendar ideas are a manifesto if put together properly) just a lot of loyalty and care for the recreation that makes me happy when it’s good.

    Obviously take it or leave it, but i actually started to think the mess we’re all in is classical, and far more readily understood in those terms. I shall now get my head down to be finding out facts, having i think more than adequately stated my opinion. Make of the above what you will. I saw some moral truths up close, lately, and maybe because I have a hammer, everything is a nail, but there could be some good in thinking about what I write. Offered up on the off – chance it might help.

    ASAPASPAAPSA, on April 25, 2012 at 11:58

    Is the company as in “there is also the potential of legal action from at least one very large company that is not part of the deal at the moment” Williams? I know you worded that that way for a reason but could you please let on? ALSO, could the teams buy the 20% if they got themselves together and/or what are the chances these are non-voting shares?

    Joe Saward, on April 25, 2012 at 12:34

    Mercedes-Benz

    ASAPASPAAPSA, on April 25, 2012 at 14:40

    ! Now I remember about Mercedes being left out. Strange why, do you have any theories as to why Bernie would ‘forget’ while Red Bull were remembered?

    Adam, on April 25, 2012 at 12:17

    Joe I am surprised you stuck to a single line of “There is a risk that the required funding will not be raised, as happened before when a previous attempt was made to float.” If they fail to successfully float it would be a train wreck because overnight you devalue what CVC is holding and they can’t get that paper value back easily.

    So is this going to be a public flotation or a private one? I would think they must have some investor groups in mind they hope to bid against one another already in a private offering. The whole thing appears to be a little bit wishful thinking in the current market and if others don’t see F1 as valuable as Bernie and CVC have made it seem in recent years, by milking it of cash, then the whole thing goes into a downward spiral.

    Even if you can get blood from a stone, it is still a finite resource. Nothing has unlimited value. Another four races a season does not make much more of a resource to milk over today’s assets. I have to think there are two or more groups lined up to create good demand, but it could be that all the money in recent years they have milked makes them believe the gravy train is endless and they are misreading the demand for the supply they have.

    Adrian Newey Jnr, on April 26, 2012 at 05:26

    Thats what underwriters are for.

    Scott Bloom, on April 25, 2012 at 12:18

    Any idea what kind of voting rights new shareholders will be afforded? Can’t imagine that Bernie et al would be giving up any control.

    Jmsuter, on April 25, 2012 at 12:36

    Well, isnt there an argument that they are more likely to succeed when “cashing in on Asia’s interest” in F1 now rather than later, when the circuits become tired of the constant hard bargaining of F1 and – noting the decline in European races – realize that F1 needs Asia more than it needs F1?

    Matt, on April 25, 2012 at 12:42

    I’d like to see some financials to back up that valuation. Joe, any idea what the EBITDA is?

    Joe Saward, on April 25, 2012 at 12:56

    Revenues in 2010 were around $1.6 billion, the 2011 figure will be higher. But one cannot trust most sources of information, as a lot of the estimates are being made up.

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 17:01

    Side note: take a look at what you can get as a interest rate on a modest sum today at a supposedly stable bank. The revenue ratio looks at first sight very healthy, even at a 10BLN valuation. (Joe I am pretty sure is citing a gross estimate, not nett, regulsr readers know the splits) and you can start to imagine this is not the worst thing ever.

    What sucks is all the pitfalls (ugh, awful pun, dear me) we go on about here all the time. Then you might temper that with the rather impressive way F1 carries on blinkered regardless. Which carry on regardless is mighty impressive, even if tainted by purely mercenary interests.

    The thing is that this might get sold on benefit of the doubt. Which is why I expect the thinnest float of stock permissible, so that short sellers are frustrated. Presumably the teams knew of the impending IPO schedule, and that meant no way were we going to see dissent over Bahrein.

    It’s a very desperate jigsaw puzzle, and I the reason it’s left messy I think is because no-one will like the picture when the last annoying piece is ham-fisted into place, just as you do, all fed up and exhausted after a long family Christmas. I really do think we should get writing in to the Monetary Authority of Singapore, to insist it is in the genuine public interest to insist on a full published prospectus.

    Plenty enough of us just here who know how to argue that. My own personal reason for avoiding mainstream banking is simply this whole racket of co-opting everyone’s pensions for extravagant fees which despoil any returns. Obviously that is just one aspect of banking, but it’s where the wall of money comes from.

    If you would like a excellent personal read on how mutual funds got to be popular, well, it was because one guy actually meant to do the right thing, chap called Jack Dreyfus. His auto biography, The Lion Of Wall Street is a saga of him fighting crippling depression caused – as i recall the narrative – in no small part because he was trying to find an honest way to look after customers’ money.

    I found it upsetting as much as enlightening. I read it when still a teen, and it deeply impressed me as a human story. I believe it is out of print. Google Books has it classified under “Psychopathology”. Do you even need another word to tell you why banking ruins formative morals?

    Josh, on April 25, 2012 at 12:47

    The Singapore dollar is also a pretty stable currency. Much more stable than the Euro/GBP or USD.

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 16:32

    But, whilst we’re on about transparency, the SGP is pegged to a secret basket of currencies . . . all very above board, naturally. Unfair to single them out though, if you dare more than glance at what our central banks are up to. Recently read Lords Of Finance by Liaquat Ahamed, which is a amazingly poised “quick” take on the history of central banking characters and policy.

    (the character analysis is what kept my interest) Reason to pay attention is because just about every stock market move anywhere is now joined at the hip to money policy. Goes up when cash is printed, goes down when pols argue maybe we should not print another profligate trillion.

    Okay, not so simple, but that is a major effect ensuring public stocks just are a hopeless place to find our genuine values of anything, and a reason why I am unsure stocks make any sense for even very dedicated amateurs like me. This, I believe, is why everything gets jimmied into your pension fund now.

    The reality is the facts of the underlying are too ugly for public scrutiny. Just lie back and think of true capitalism. It goes far into the background detail, but search for “Jim Grant + Zerohedge”, take the first link you are served up, and you have a heart rending exposition of just how money policy is making a mockery of the market.

    That might be the most educative and cautionary explanatory read I’ve come across as to why it all seems so impenetrably bent. Now, given there’s hardly any rules, why don’t we preempt Bernie and launch a cash shell to counterbid for what CVC is dumping? Oh, would have to overpay, but everything is inflated, and we might just actually try to fix this broken mess . .

    6 wheeled tyrrell, on April 25, 2012 at 12:53

    does this mean that the concorde agreement (when signed) will be available for public viewing?…or are the laws for such a thing a little looser in Asia?

    Joe Saward, on April 25, 2012 at 12:57

    I doubt that the Concorde Agreement will become public information. It did not in the case of the Williams F1 flotation.

    Mike, on April 25, 2012 at 13:29

    But wasn’t that more due to listing in Germany and their lower levels of disclosure needed? or does the Singapore exchange have the same levels of disclosure? Also why would any put these long term values on a sport that has no assets except a briefcase full of contracts is beyond me, once the music has stopped someone will be left with that useless briefcase.

    6 wheeled Tyrrell, on April 25, 2012 at 20:39

    I always figured the briefcase that holds the Concorde agreement would glow when opened like the one in Pulp Fiction

    Peter Tabmow, on April 25, 2012 at 13:28

    I agree with Roger that the choice of Singapore reflects the same preference to minimise disclosure that prevented a US or European flotation in the 1990s. I also share Jerry’s suspicion that Bernie doesn’t care about the succession issue. A complete disintegration of the entire F1 edifice in the wake of BCE’s departing the scene would suit his ego just as well as – if not more than – a successful transition.

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 16:11

    As I understand it, the open market (which you may take to mean light or very light regulation, cough splutter) was a conditional deal brokered by Walter Wriston, when he was head of Citibank, in the 70s. The deal was Citi, then the heart of laundering the petrodollar printing boom (to deflate the oil shock by devaluation – notice any modern parallels?)

    would ensure Singapore got to be a money center, in return they had somewhere to trade alternative to the rather embarrassing (because it was reaction to silly tax laws) euro-dollar market which though arisen in Luxembourg was now London’s baby. They were irked that us Europeans were setting money prices, to say the least.

    (and even more so that a very upper class Anglo – Italian gent, blast it, forget his name, had masterminded this ever so neat co-option of so much vital business)  That’s an awfully potted attempt on the history, but it helped Singapore enormously, and goes some way to explain why we might just be “officially happy” there’s zip diddly regulation thataway.

    So, ironically, you might argue full circle, that if there was any serious regulation, there’d be no modern Singapore, and hence no Grand Prix, and ultimately no F1 IPO in the territory . . . Great movie, if you can get a copy, for the scenery of Singapore, is Saint Jack. You may not stomach the storyline, and it’s almost a remake of an earlier and far more accomplished flick about a pimp, but Ben Gazarra, Denholm Elliot and filmed secretly without permission on location make it a substantial morsel.

    Just enjoy the scenery. Not family viewing, really not, I mean Hugh Heffner was a producer (presumably bankrolled it). But thought of it as this IPO has a nostalgic air of laissez faire sleaze about it.

    Rpaco, on April 25, 2012 at 17:14

    Two things occur to me JoJ: Firstly if one is going to invest in a single share, one should do the homework first, this applies to everyone in every market. Now the very fact that Singapore is being used and the real full books will not be seen, in itself tells a tale, however you must look at the fundamentals and the key ratios.

    Obviously you need all the figures in order to do this, if they are not available then it is simple, bargepole time. It has to be a private placement not a float! The other is that Saint Jack is a very good read by Paul Theroux, whose railway travelogues in S America are on my list to re read one day. However Denholm Elliot was the epitome of the character as written. Also a fine collection of unusual stories for a plane trip Joe mostly in hot climes.

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 18:00

    Yes, but with the paucity of information, pricing a F1 Holding (or however it shall be called) share is mark to model. Which is just where the latest mess started. (will simply be sick if i think of the Basel “requirements”) I bet we could piece together a pretty good set of Excel macros between us, but I genuinely doubt any hard facts will be attainable.

    I remember the first time I read GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Practices) and realized, wow, you had to make assumptions about every line, and so started to write little scrappy programmes that would fill in outlier variances between public reports to flag up what might be a out of normal number

    (crude guesses as to what really looks out of line, link it back to possible rules, get sometimes a hint as to when to start reading those footnotes. ouch is that awful to do using table references, switched to Quantrix, way nicer) . . gonna stop that drift. I agree with caveat emptor.

    I’d not have it any other way, and I’d never have learned except by mistakes, nota they were on my penny, not OPM, even if I recall my hand being scalded. LIke when a kiddo you boast about getting a scrape falling off your bike, because you survived, so must be a hard lad! But the vastness of the industry dedicated to obfuscating real numbers is daunting.

    It took off in my lifetime just something else. There was this huge move to “regulation” and reference to tomes of codified hypothetical sanctity. Give me back the straight dope any daym honesty even in dishonesty because there are fewer illusions. Even looking at plain “governance”, a share conveys few if any rights.

    See rotating boards, the US equivalent to voting preferences lately switched back to voting preference, GOOG and the facebook website thing have at least gotten straight in your face as to control . . my entire drift is that we should be able to look at automated numbers now. If I can automate my tax return by pulling my transactions into a batch job to get me a picture every month, even with tolerances you as a motor engineer would faint at, they are at least guides, why should not a shareholder have access to that?

    Sorry, on another drift. I believe in caveat emptor, but I worry just how many caveats we need to succour when there is little evidence of straight dealing. I do not believe any party involved in this transaction has any enviable record in managing public companies. It is an indictment of our entire society that it’s hard to think of but a few names who do have that respect.

    Just too big a subject, but the people who care about this are your generation, not mine. You are the front line of these losses, despite the pitch to blame baby boomers for passing on a tainted legacy. Your money being taken. Or rather my generation I know, virtue blessings of birth, seem not to care.

    I got nowhere with a dear admired friend who is supposed to publicly advocate for fair pensions. My lot never had to worry, so are the wrong lot to address the issue. It is deeply upsetting to me that that cabal also encapsulates those who have the education or capability to look into the subject.

    Shop closed, by default, even if not by design. Personal loss is I miss my school friends, because these are divergences of thought very difficult to abridge socially. Anyhow, also a fan of Paul Theroux. I thought Elliot’s character was rewritten in the flim, though. I also think Theroux too good at stringing vignettes and never reaching the heart or catching more than ephemera.

    Great stuff for a director of photography, but just never enough meat. That’s why I do like him, though, as my own impressions were very young of that world. Not going to look it up, but I think Chinese Box, with Jeremy Irons and that local girl who is still a star, was very good, might have been Theroux also, ‘least he did do a HK book.

    For anyone just tuning in, the FO used to insist Noble House, Clavell, was required reading. Transparent contemporary history, by accident I met and was charmed into polite supplication by the (transformed just enough in prose) baddie in that book. Common interest, ballroom dancing, though I am two left feet, was my dad’s thing, same generation.

    If you fancy Piers Brosnan, who has his actorly charms (see Evelyn, which he did off his own bat) he did a really tolerable mini series of Noble House, production for HBO or some channel like that, which can be found on VHS. bit too too early in the day for all this, rpaco, hope you and the crowd may forgive me!

    – john

    John (other John), on April 25, 2012 at 22:58

    footnote on my comment as to generations being ripped off: if the retiree crowd have nothing to pass on, are plundered to pay for what i think of as only false debts, we ruin ourselves. It may have been a convenient policy to throw free capital at the never-capitalists of my scrounging generation,

    scrounging twice because they were pampered by gifts from their own hard working parents and then again by a desperate bulk vote purchases, but the destruction of society will come from taking away the ability of one’s elders, who have experience, to allocate capital. I think almost anyone my age got sold the idea that they are by default the Prodigal Son, and somehow deserving.

    NOT SO. The reason we attribute reason to our elders, is that despite there may be some of us who believe they are sufficiently educated to apportion resource by MBA diktat, it used to be the majority of the wealth was accrued to our parents, and whether they possessed fancy degrees or not, simple longevity of experience schooled them the practical way.

    By usurping this natural process, I am sorry, but no amount of PhDs will recompense for collective wisdom. We just discarded a natural governor of the pressures of society to find and use money. I speak as just one of those stupid children who thought they knew it all. My gen go on and on about IP, intellectual capital and all things which revolve around the law, and omit to observe how true human capital evolves.

    Because the natural inclinations of us all as we grow older become more protective. By all means, there are flaws in my argument, but I am imagining the sheer statistics of population create a bulwark against speculation, and this might warrant some better observation. I know my own parents may have had little knowledge of the economy in which I grew up, and as a boy I actually cursed them for being so dense, but they did restrain me, and not jump in.

    Therefore, they preserved capital to be inherited. Modest amounts, I hastily add. That said, if you take away through zero rates the very income on which your forbears live, you squander their capital, and no matter what the people selling you insurance or annuity say, it’s your parents who will always care most to save for you, because what else do they have to pass on but you?

    A curse on the generation who create children in hock, or rather they are a curse on all of us, and an insult to their own children. We are being societally neutered by policy designed to pander to these wastrels, every one of us, and every age of us. I think we have risked beyond quick repose, the fabric of life.

    Ash, on April 25, 2012 at 16:56

    I agree re the succession issue. If it was important to Bernie he would have done something about it. The fact that he hasn’t can only mean that he doesn’t care. “Après moi, le déluge” is about it.

    CTP, on April 25, 2012 at 14:20

    joe, what’s the latest on the gribowsky/german trial situation? news of that seemed to die down… and just as that might have been in the f1 news, we had the whole bahrain situation instead… not that bernie would start little fires to keep people away from the big one or anything like that…

    RobbieMeister, on April 25, 2012 at 16:53

    i wonder if Rupert would like 20% of F1…….

    …….well it’s a start!

    Adrian Newey Jnr, on April 26, 2012 at 08:00

    Joe – as a side note, it would be interesting to see who now owns the Williams shares now that they’re listed.

    Matt, on April 26, 2012 at 09:02

    According to Bloomy:

    1. Frank owns 51.5%
    2. Mr Wolff has 15.45%
    3. Patrick Head owns 9.33%

    The rest are mutual funds/investment houses with the exception of Nichoas Rose who owns 0.04%. The full list is:

    1. Cyrte Investments BV – 5%
    2. BASE Investment Sicav – 0.15%
    3. Rafferty Asset Management LLC – 0.1%
    4. CB-Accent Lux Sicav – 0.09%
    5. BBK Gestion SA SGIIC/Spain – 0.05%
    6. Hansainvest GMBH – 0.02%
    7. Popso (Suisse) Investment Fund – 0.02%

    Some of this info is from March 2011 but mostly from December. And yes, I know it doesn’t add up to 100%!

    F1ipo, on April 27, 2012 at 04:45

    Hey Joe….you should be looking fowardcto F1′s share flotation: when it comes out buy 10 shares and then, as an official “shareholder” of F1 you’ll be asking all the questions that their current management would never answer. Questions like: how much prize money is given to the winning driver , etc.


    as


    s3ra


    and the winner may get this girl, but not for free. who is this girl?

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 2:25 AM on 2012/05/25 Permalink  

    There is a time to live 

    Jakarta, Friday, May 25, 2012 2:25 AM

    by S3ra Sutan Rajo Ali

    There is a time to live.
    There is a time to die.
    Where are we?
    Living to die?
    Dying to live?
    Lying to live?
    Live lying?
    Lying to die?
    Die to lie?


    Fight for your life, my cousin.

    It’s only your enlarged thyroid following some disorders that causes it to a state of hyper or hypo, or some function to the thyroid nodules that makes your thyroid swelling (goiter). The swelling thyroid can develop to become a thyroid neoplasm, a tumor of the thyroid, and with a 5% probability to become a cancer, and  3% of those result in fatalities.

    The natural cures are the salt (NaCl), the chalk (calcium carbonate, CaCO3), and sea products such as seaweeds, seafood, shellfish (the iodine, I2). The iodine is extracted from brine (salted water, NaCl+H2O), from kelp, or as a byproduct of nitrates.

    Shellfish is very much different with selfish.

    Are you selfish enough?

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 1:41 PM on 2012/05/24 Permalink  

    Papua yang Sarat dengan Isu Politik dan Kolonialisme, Dari Dulu Sampai Sekarang

    By Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 24 May 2012


    1. Beberapa Dasar Kepemilikan Indonesia atas Papua bagian barat
    2. Kolonialisme Asing di Papua
    3. Beberapa bentuk konfrontasi terbuka dengan Belanda pasca kemerdekaan Indonesia

    Beberapa Dasar Kepemilikan Indonesia atas Papua bagian barat

    Wilayah barat Papua merupakan bagian dari Indonesia atas pertimbangan beberapa faktor berikut:

    1. Beberapa catatan sejarah:
      1. Pengakuan kekuasaan Kerajaan Sriwijaya (abad VII-XIII) atas wilayah Irian Jaya yang bernama Janggi. Pusat-pusat perdagangan dan agama Budha di Cina menuliskan persembahan Maharaja Sriwijaya bernama Sri Indrawarman kepada Kaisar Cina dalam bentuk bulu–bulu burung yang indah. Termasuk didalamnya rempah-rempah, wewangian, dan mutiara.
      2. Kitab Negara Kertagama yang ditulis oleh Mpu Prapanca (1365) menyebutkan Wanin sebagai wilayah Majapahit atau Majapahit kedelapan (1293-1527). Dalam syair ke XIV terdapat kata-kata Ewanin (Semenanjung Onin, bagian dari Semenanjung Bomberai, dekat Fak-Fak) dan Sien (nama lain dari Kowiai). Kedua kata tersebut terletak di Teluk Bintuni Kabupaten Manokwari.
      3. Kesultanan Ternate, Tidore, dan Bacan di Maluku memiliki klaim kedaulatan atas berbagai wilayah pantai Papua. Beberapa produk asal Papua mencakup resin, rempah-rempah, budak, dan bulu burung Cendrawasih. Semasa perlawanan dengan Belanda di tahun 1780-an, Sultan Nuku menamakan dirinya Sultan Tidore dan Papua, khususnya kepulauan Raja Ampat.
      4. Pantai Utara sampai Barat daerah Kepala Burung sampai Namatota (Kab. Fak-fak) disebelah Selatan, serta pulau–pulau disekitarnya merupakan daerah kekuasaan Sultan Tidore (abad XVI). Penguasa setempat (korano) yang diangkat Sultan Tidore membayar upeti tahunan.
    2. Seluruh bekas jajahan Belanda merupakan bagian dari Indonesia, yakni berdasarkan perjanjian internasional 1896 yang diperjuangkan Prof. Van Vollen Houven (pakar hukum adat Indonesia).
    3. Poreu Ohee bersama pemuda Papua lainnya hadir dalam pelaksanaan Sumpah Pemuda 28.10.1928.
    4. Berdasarkan kesepakan KMB 1949 di Den Haag antara RIS dan Belanda yang akan membuat penyelesaian Irian Barat setahun setelah penyerahan kedaulatan negara RI.
    5. Berdasarkan KAA di Bandung di tahun 1955 yang dihadiri 29 negara-negara Asia-Afrika yang mendukung kedaulatan RI atas Irian, kecuali Cina.
    6. Tidak berdasarkan penduduk asli yang memiliki ras negroid, berbeda dengan penduduk Indonesia lainnya yang berasal dari ras Homo Wajakensis dan Homo Soloensis yang merupakan ciri suku/bangsa Aborigin (pribumi Australia).

    Kolonialisme Asing di Papua

    1. Di tahun 1660, Belanda mengakui kedaulatan Sultan Tidore di Papua (New Guinea). Pendudukan Tidore menjadikan Papua termasuk kedalam wilayah kekuasaannya.
    2. Di tahun 1793, Inggris membuat pemukiman di Manokwari, tetapi tidak berlangsung lama.
    3. Di tahun 1824, Inggris dan Belanda bersepakat bahwa bagian barat pulau menjadi milik pemerintah Hindia Belanda (Dutch East Indies).
    4. Di tahun 1828, Belanda membuat pemukiman di Lobo, dekat Kaimana, tetapi tidak berlangsung lama.
    5. Di tahun 1848, Belanda mengklaim pantai selatan, di barat meridian 141 dan pantai utara di barat teluk Humboldt.
    6. Di tahun 1858, Jerman membuat pemukiman misionaris pertama di pulau dekat Manokwari.
    7. Belanda dan Jerman membuat pemukiman di Manowari dan Fak-Fak sebagai respon persepsi kepemilikan Australia di bagian timur New Guinea.
    8. Berdasarkan Traktat di tahun 1885 dan 1895, Inggris dan Jerman mengakui klaim Belanda atas wilayah barat Papua (New Guinea). Inggris mengklaim tenggara Papua yang kemudian disebut Teritori Papua, sementara Jerman mengklaim timur laut Papua, yang kemudian disebut Teritori New Guinea. Berdasarkan Traktat Versailles, menyusul kekalahan Jerman pada PD-I, Teritori New Guinea diberikan ke Australia yang telah mengelola klaim Inggris atas Teritori Papua.
    9. 24.08.1898, Proklamasi Fort du Bus oleh Komisaris Pemerintahan Kerajaan Belanda A.J. Van Delden saat meresmikan pendirian benteng Fort du Bus di Teluk Triton di kaki gunung Lumenciri, tepatnya di kampung Lobo, desa Lobo, kecamatan Kaimana, kabupaten Fak-Fak.
      1. Nieuw Guinea dengan daerah pedalamannya dimulai pada garis 140 BT di pantai selatan terus kearah barat, barat daya dan utara sampai ke semenanjung Goede Hoop di pantai utara dinyatakan sebagai milik Belanda, kecuali daerah Mansari, Karondefer, Ambarpura, dan Amberpon yang dimiliki SultanTidore.
      2. Pos pemerintahan Hindia Belanda di Irian Barat berkedudukan di Manokwari dan kemudian di Fak-Fak. Kedua pos dibawahi Keresidenan Maluku yang berkedudukan di Ambon. Kedua pos kemudian ditingkatkan statusnya menjadi afdeling, yaitu:
        1. Afdeling Noord Nieuw Guinea, (Irian Jaya Bagian Utara) berpusat di Manokwari, meliputi wilayah Sorong sampai Jayapura.
        2. Afdeling West Nieuw Guinea (Irian Jaya Bagian Barat) berpusat di Fakfak, meliputi wilayah Fak-Fak sampai Merauke.
    10. Sampai pertengahan abad ke-20, aktivitas Belanda bersifat minim.
    11. Di tahun 1910, Hollandia dibangun; dan dikembangkan menjadi kota dengan layanan modern di bidang sipil, pendidikan, dan kesehatan di tahun 1962. Nama Hollandia diganti menjadi Kotabaru, Sukarnopura, dan terakhir Jayapura.
    12. Di tahun 1930-an, perusahaan pertambangan minyak Belanda, AS, dan Jepang mulai mengeksplorasi cadangan kaya minyak.
    13. Di tahun 1935, Shell (40%), Mobil (40%), dan Chevron’s Far Pacific Investments (20%) berpatungan membentuk NNGPM guna mengeksplorasi Papua Barat.
    14. Di tahun 1936, Jean Dozy yang bekerja di NNGPM menemukan deposit emas dan tembaga terkaya di dunia di gunung dekat Timika yang dinamakan Ertsberg (Gunung Bijih). Kegagalan mendapatkan lisensi dari Belanda atau pribumi pemilik lahan, temuan NNGPM dijaga kerahasiaanya.
    15. Di tahun 1938, pemukim Belanda berkurang menjadi 50 di dekat Hollandia (Jayapura) dan 258 di Manokwari. Kamp Boven Digul di Tanah Merah menjadi penjara bagi bagi nasionalis Indonesia.
    16. Di tahun 1942, pantai utara Papua Barat dan pulau di sekitarnya diduduki Jepang.
    17. Di tahun 1944, tentara sekutu mengambil kendali wilayah melalui 4 tahap serangan, yakni perebutan Hollandia; Sarmi; Biak dan Numfor; Morotai dan Merauke.
    18. Setelah PD-II, Belanda mengambil-alih pemilikan atas Papua.

    Beberapa bentuk konfrontasi terbuka dengan Belanda pasca kemerdekaan Indonesia:

    1. Agresi Militer I dan II.
    2. Pasca KMB, Belanda mempersiapkan otonomi Papua melalui pendidikan, propaganda nasionalisme Papua, pendirian akademi angkatan laut dan serdadu, dan pembentukan parlemen di tingkat lokal dan Papua. Upaya ini tidak mendapat dukungan kuat di seluruh wilayah Papua dan sangat terfragmentasi.
    3. Serangkaian pertemuan bilateral di tahun 1950, 1952, dan 1954.
    4. Konstitusi Belanda tahun 1952 (dan 1956) memasukkan Irian Barat (New Guinea) sebagai wilayah jajahannya.
    5. Serangkaian Sidang Umum PBB di tahun 1954, 1955, 1956, dan 1957 (tidak tercapainya kuorum 2/3 suara). Seluruh negara kolonial di Blok Barat menentang Indonesia, kecuali Yunani. Atas dasar itu, Indonesia tidak akan mau melibatkan PBB dalam hal Irian Barat.
    6. Konferensi Asia Afrika di tahun 1955.
    7. Indonesia secara sepihak membatalkan Uni Indonesia-Belanda, termasuk didalamnya isi KMB dan pengakuan Ratu Belanda sebagai Kepala Negara (UU No.12/1956 tertanggal 3 Mei 1956).
    8. Belanda sangat terlibat pada berbagai pergolakan seperti APRA, Andi Azis, dan RMS. Sementara AS membantu PRRI selama tahun 1950-an.
    9. Dimulainya propaganda aksi pembebasan Irian Barat per 18.11.1957.
    10. Pemogokan buruh di seluruh perusahaan milik Belanda per 02.12.1957.
    11. Pelarangan peredaran media (cetak dan film berbahasa) Belanda per 02.12.1957.
    12. Pelarangan pendaratan dan penerbangan KLM di seluruh wilayah Indonesia.
    13. Penghentian seluruh kegiatan konsuler Belanda per 03.12.1957 dan nasionalisasi seluruh perusahaan Belanda di Indonesia, yang dipelopori oleh rakyat dan buruh, dan diorganisir PKI dan veteran.
    14. Pengaturan nasionalisasi seluruh perusahaan Belanda (PP No.23/1958).
    15. Per 06.03.1959, New York Times memuat berita penemuan Belanda di dataran berisi endapan emas yang mengalir ke laut Arafura dan melanjutkan pencarian ke gunung yang menjadi sumber asal emas.
    16. Berdasarkan pemberitaan NYT, Freeport Sulphur menjajaki kemitraan dengan perusahaan Dutch East Borneo. Kesepakatan di bulan Januari 1960 berisi usulan klaim Belanda atas wilayah Timika sebagai deposit tembaga, tetapi tidak menyinggung sedikit pun tentang emas atau materi ikutan lainnya dalam deposit tembaga.
    17. Pemutusan hubungan diplomatik dengan Belanda per 17.08.1960 sebagai reaksi peningkatan armada laut (pengiriman kapal induk Karel Doorman), armada udara, dan angkatan daratnya di Irian Barat.
    18. Belanda membentuk Dewan Papua (05.04.1961).
    19. Pada SU-PBB per Sept. 1961, Belanda mengumumkan berdirinya Negara Papua Merdeka, mengusulkan dekolonisasi Irian Barat (Rencana Luns), dan mengirimkan kapal induk Karel Doorman ke Irian Barat.
    20. Presiden Soekarno mendeklarasikan Trikora per 19.12.1961 di Yogyakarta:
      1. Gagalkan berdirinya negara Boneka Papua bentukan Belanda.
      2. Kibarkan sang Merah Putih di irtian Jaya tanah air Indonesia.
      3. Bersiap melaksanakan mobilisasi umum.
    21. Pada bulan Januari 1962, Mesir melarang kapal-kapal Belanda melewati terusan Suez sebagai bentuk dukungan Dunia Ketiga dan protes terhadap kebijakan Belanda terhadap Irian Barat.
    22. Pembentukan Komando Mandala Pembebasan Irian Barat di Makassar.
    23. Upaya Indonesia merebut Irian Barat didukung Uni Soviet (PM Nikita Kruschev).
    24. Penolakan Proposal (Elsworth) Bunker.[1] AS yang semakin pro-Indonesia dinilai Belanda sebagai pengkhianatan mengejutkan. Sementara Menlu Soebandrio menilai sebagai bentuk penghinaan terhadap kedaulatan Indonesia.
    25. Pelaksanaan operasi penyusupan. Pimpinan MTB (Motor Boat Torpedo) Macan Tutul yang dinakhodai Tutul Yoshafat Sudarso gugur.
    26. Pelaksanaan Operasi Jaya Wijaya, Maret-Agustus 1962.
    27. Gencatan senjata per 18.08.1962 berdasarkan perundingan di PBB per 15.08.1962.
    28. New York Agreement per 21.09.1962 dengan suara 88 pro dan 15 abstain:[2]
      1. Pemerintahan sementara PBB (UNTEA) menerima serah terima pemerintahan dari tangan Belanda paling lambat 01.10.1962 dan sejak saat itu bendera merah putih diperbolehkan berkibar di Irian Barat.
      2. Bendera merah putih berkibar disamping bendera PBB per 31.12.1962.
      3. Pemulangan anggota anggota sipil dan militer Belanda sudah harus selesai per 01.05.1963.
      4. Pemerintah RI secara resmi menerima penyerahan pemerintahan Irian Barat dari tangan PBB paling lambat per 01.05.1963.
      5. Indonesia wajib untuk mengadakan Penentuan Pendapat rakyat di Irian Barat, paling lambat sebelum akhir tahun 1969.
      6. Realisasi penyerahan Irian Barat dilakukan (sesuai rencana) di Hollandia (Jayapura) per 01.05.1963 sekaligus peresmian sebagai provinsi ke-26 dengan nama Irian Jaya.
    29. Per 05.09.1963, nama Hollandia diganti menjadi Kota Baru dan mengkarantina teritori, kecuali atas izin Menlu Subandrio.
    30. Dibawah kepresidenan Soeharto, di than 1967, Freeport Sulphur menjadi perusahaan asing pertama yang mendapatkan lisensi pertambangan, yakni diizinkan menambang emas dan tembaga di wilayah Tembagapura selama 30 tahun.
    31. Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat (Pepera) dilaksanakan dalam kurun waktu 24.03.1969-04.08.1969. Berdasarkan hasil Pepera, Dewan Musyawarah Pepera (yang diwakili 1.054 tetua) mengumumkan bahwa penduduk setempat dengan suara bulat memutuskan untuk menjadi bagian dari RI dengan nama Irian Barat. Hasil Pepera dilaporkan Duta Besar Ortiz Sanz dalam sidang umum PBB ke 24 per 19.11.1969 (dengan suara 84 pro, 30 abstain, dan 0 anti). Sejak saat itu secara de yure Irian Barat sah menjadi milik RI.
    32. Di tahun 1971, konstruksi pertambangan tembaga dan emas terbesar di dunia (dan juga pertambangan open cut terbesar di dunia). Freeport Sulphur yang berganti nama menjadi Freeport-McMoran diizinkan menambang selama 30 tahun terhitung sejak operasional pertambangan dimulai di tahun 1973.
    33. Di tahun 1991, pakta tersebut diperpanjang 30 tahun lagi.
    34. Di tahun 1998, operasionalisasi pertambangan Grasberg membuat Freeport menjadi pertambangan emas terbesar di dunia dan pertambangan tembaga dengan harga ekstraksi paling rendah di dunia.
    35. Limbah tailing tembaga dan emas dibuang sebanyak 190.000 ton setiap harinya.

    [1] Bunker merupakan utusan JFK sebagai Presiden AS melalui Sekjen PBB U Than. Dukungan Soviet, dirasa AS sebagai pimpinan NATO dengan Belanda sebagai anggota, bisa meluas ke wilayah Asia lainnya dan Pasifik Barat Daya.

    [2] New York Agreement menjadi role model bagi penyelesaian sengketa kolonialisme dan nasionalisme.

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 6:54 AM on 2012/05/23 Permalink  

    The losing Dutch to maintain power in Irian Jaya as its colony highly blessed with gold, other minerals, oil and gas, and timber

    By Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 23 May 2012


    1. 19950306, Summaries of FRUS Volumes
    2. 20080512, The Implementation of Special Autonomy in West Papua, Indonesia
    3. 20110720, West Papua Advocacy Team to Secretary of State Clinton on Indonesian military operation in Puncak Jaya, West Papua
    4. 201202091250, New York Agreement
    5. 201202091250, New York Agreement Explained
    6. 201205091646, History of West Papua
    7. 201205091914, West Papua (region), (Redirected from Irian)
    8. 201205221653, West Papua (province)
    9. 201205120244, New Guinea
    10. 201205120244, New Guinea Explained
    11. 201205091914, Western New Guinea Explained (201205221653)

    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summaries/950306_FRUS_XXIII_1961-63.html

    Summaries of FRUS Volumes

    19950306

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    95/03/06 Foreign Relations, 1961-63, Vol XXIII, Southeast Asia
    Office of the Historian
    Bureau of Public Affairs
    United States Department of State

    March 6, 1995

    While the growing insurgencies in Laos and South Vietnam dominated the Kennedy administration’s policy toward Southeast Asia, there were significant issues in the rest of the region. Foreign Relations, 1961-1963, volume XXIII, Southeast Asia, released today, documents U.S. policy deliberations and decisions concerning Southeast Asia beyond Vietnam and Laos.

    The volume contains a regional compilation of documents that focus on the role of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and bilateral compilations on U.S. relations with Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand. The wars in South Vietnam and Laos encouraged Thailand’s government to seek additional security commitments from the United States.

    The most public confirmation of these assurances was the joint communique of Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Foreign Minister Thanat Khoman of March 1962. There were also private assurances, and, in mid-1962, the United States dispatched troops to Thailand both as a signal to the North Vietnamese and their allies in Laos and as an overt assurance to Thailand.

    The inability of SEATO to respond effectively to the challenges in Laos and South Vietnam weakened the organization and allowed friction among its membership. The conflict in South Vietnam caused friction between Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia and the United States. Relations reached their nadir in December 1963. U.S. relations with Burma were not as directly tied to the conflicts in Laos and South Vietnam as was U.S. policy toward the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO).

    Elsewhere in the area, the Kennedy administration was attempting to win over Sukarno’s Indonesia by facilitating its claim to West Irian, then the Netherlands colony of West New Guinea. Determined not to lose Indonesia to Communist influence, White Houses officials overcame Secretary of State Rusk’s skepticism of Sukarno and Rusk’s attachment to the Netherlands, a NATO ally.

    They shifted U.S. policy from neutrality in the dispute toward pressure on the Netherlands to relinquish West New Guinea to Indonesia. The Netherlands had initially insisted on a long-term UN trusteeship and UN- supervised self-determination for the inhabitants. The final agreed plan included only a minimal UN role in the transfer procedures; it was a virtual handover from Netherlands to Indonesian control. President Kennedy and his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, played a major role in this process.

    During the final stages, the President intervened to insist that Indonesia accept the Netherlands’ last best offer and not escalate its guerrilla war against Netherlands forces in West New Guinea. Opposition by both the Philippines and Indonesia to the creation of the Federation of Malaysia complicated the furtherance of U.S. objectives in Southeast Asia.

    The Philippines’ opposition took the form of a diplomatic campaign based on a prior claim to part of Malaysia. Sukarno opposed the federation with the policy of confrontation which it had initially used in West Irian. U.S. relations with Australia were greatly influenced by Indonesia.

    The Australians opposed transfer of West New Guinea to Indonesia because Australia held the other half of the island in trust. The Australians were equally concerned about the Indonesian threat to the Federation of Malaysia since they had troops stationed there. Australia sought a special understanding that should its troops in Malaysia be attacked overtly by Indonesian forces, the United States and Australia would consult under the terms of the ANZUS treaty.

    This volume presents the official record of U.S. policy drawn from documents originating in the Departments of State and Defense, the White House, the Central Intelligence Agency, and from papers of key participants. The Office of the Historian has prepared a summary of the volume. For additional information, contact Edward C. Keefer, Chief of the Asia and Americas Division, at (202) 6631131.

    Volume XXIII (Department of State Publication No. 10174; GPO Stock No 044-000-02389-0; ISBN 0-16-042054-7) may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office for $46.00 (postpaid; $57.50 for foreign orders). Please use the order form below.

    Order from: Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Telephone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

    Foreign Relations of the United States
    1961-1963, Volume XXIII
    (This is not an official statement of policy by the Department of State; it is intended only as a guide to the contents of this volume.)

    Southeast Asia

    Since 1861, the Department of State’s documentary series Foreign Relations of the United States has constituted the official record of the foreign policy and diplomacy of the United States. Historians in the Office of the Historian collect, arrange, and annotate the principal documents comprising the record of American foreign policy.

    The standards for the preparation of the series and the general deadlines for its publication are established by the Foreign Relations of the United States statute of October 28, 1991 (22 USC 4351, et seq.). U.S. policies during the administration of President John F. Kennedy are the subject of 25 print volumes and 6 microfiche supplements.

    Volumes in the Foreign Relations series are published when all necessary editing, declassification, and printing steps have been completed. The documents in this volume are drawn from the centralized indexed files of the Department of State, the decentralized lot files of the Department’s Executive Secretariat, and Bureau, Office, and Division lot files.

    In addition, the editors made extensive use of the Presidential and other papers at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, Massachusetts. Most of the documents were originally classified. The Historical Documents Review Division of the Department of State in concert with the appropriate offices in other agencies and foreign governments carried out their declassification.

    The coverage in the Foreign Relations series of U.S. foreign policy in Southeast Asia for 1961-1963 is weighted toward Vietnam and Laos (volumes I-IV and XXIV, already published). This volume, which presents a selection of documents on the rest of Southeast Asia, has two principal themes:

    1) the impact of pro-Communist insurgencies in South Vietnam and Laos on the rest of Southeast Asia, especially Thailand, Cambodia, and the members of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization and
    2) the challenge posed by Indonesian irredentism in Southeast Asia.

    The following is a summary of the important issues covered in the volume. Parenthetical citations are to numbered documents in the text. For additional copies of this summary or more information on the volume, contact Edward C. Keefer at (202) 663-1131 (fax: (202) 663-1289).

    Indonesia

    The Kennedy administration took office believing that previous U.S. policy toward Indonesia had been a mistake. Eisenhower’s secret support of the rebellion of dissident army factions in the outer islands had alienated the central government in Java.

    Even when the Eisenhower administration ended its covert support of the rebels and decided to look to the Indonesian Army as the best hedge against the growing influence of the Indonesian Communist Party (the PKI), relations with President Sukarno remained strained.

    The principal reason for this friction was the Eisenhower administration’s insistence on neutrality in the dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands over West New Guinea (called West Irian by the Indonesians).

    Indonesia interpreted U.S. unwillingness to support Sukarno’s claim to the Dutch colonial territory of West New Guinea as support for Dutch colonialism. U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Howard P. Jones, waited only days after the inauguration of President Kennedy to submit a broad seven-point plan to prevent Indonesia from falling under Communist control and to win it over to the west.

    Key points in his plan were the resolution of the West New Guinea (WNG) question whereby Indonesia received a promise that the territory would be reunited with Indonesia. Equally important was the creation of a personal relationship between Presidents Kennedy and Sukarno. (143)

    The suggested pro-Sukarno policy was not without its critics. In the Department of State, the Bureau of European Affairs was sympathetic to the Dutch view that annexation by Indonesia would simply trade white for brown colonialism, and wanted to put Indonesia on notice that the United States would not accept force as a solution to the dispute. (146)

    Secretary of State Dean Rusk supported closer relations between Sukarno and Kennedy (147), but he was not convinced that the United States should force its NATO ally to relinquish its colony directly to Indonesia. The Central Intelligence prepared a blistering anti-Sukarno brief. (155)

    There was, however, a group within the U.S. Government that was very interested in accommodation with Sukarno. White House and National Security Council staffers Robert Johnson and Robert Komer and the President’s Deputy Special Assistant for National Security Affairs Walt Rostow initiated their own review of U.S.-Indonesian policy, using the advice of academic specialists and concluded that U.S. policy toward Indonesia needed to change. (154, 156, 157)

    In early April 1961, Rusk presented the President with a proposal to support a U.N. trusteeship for WNG administered by Malaya. (158, 160) Komer considered the proposal inadequate since it did not spell out for the President that trusteeship was not just a “graceful out for the Netherlands,” but also “a cover for eventually giving WNG to Indonesia.” (159)

    When Kennedy met with Netherlands Foreign Minister Joseph Luns, he was skeptical. (162) Rusk was more sympathetic to Luns in his conversations, suggesting that the United States was still opposed to the use of force by Indonesia and considered trusteeship leading to self-determination the best course for WNG. (163, 164)

    The pro-Indonesia group at the White House were not pleased, believing that Rusk’s solution would do nothing to avert a major crisis over “West Irian.” (165-167) President Sukarno’s visit to Washington in late April 1961 provided the next focal point. State Department and White House officials presented the President with extensive briefing material recommending positions shaded to their own viewpoints. (168-171)

    When President Kennedy met with Sukarno, he soon discovered West Irian was the major issue on Sukarno’s mind. Kennedy tried all the arguments against Indonesian annexation, but Sukarno parried them. When the President raised the issue of the trusteeship, Sukarno replied, “we would be willing to borrow the hand of the United Nations to transfer the territory to Indonesia.” (172)

    As a result of this conversation, the Department of State and the White House joined in a concerted effort to solve the WNG dispute before it escalated into regional war. They attempted to bridge the gap between the Dutch desire for a trusteeship that guaranteed self-determination for the inhabitants of WNG and the Indonesian demand that a trusteeship served only as an interim stage to Indonesian administration.

    The Department suggested leaving the final disposition of the territory open ended. (175) As part of the process, the Department also encouraged the Netherlands and Indonesia to hold secret bilateral negotiations. (176) After consultations with the Netherlands in June 1961, the Department of State agreed that the United Nations offered the only practical means of solving the problem. (181, 182)

    When the matter was broached with Indonesia, it became clear that the Indonesians required assurances that “internationalization” of the problem through the United Nations would result in Indonesian control. They feared the Netherlands would use the United Nations to delay or prevent an Indonesian takeover. (185)

    Rusk worried about pushing the Dutch too far (187); the pro-Indonesia group at the White House feared the Dutch were not being pressed enough to dissuade Indonesia from reverting to the military option. (189, 190) At the United Nations, Luns proposed transfer of the territory to the United Nations, which would dispatch a commission to organize a plebiscite on Papuan self- determination. (193)

    Rostow encouraged Kennedy to take the initiative with Rusk and insist that the only resolution of the issue was one that “looks to Indonesian control.” Rostow suggested that the Dutch were “playing a double game” by attempting to keep West New Guinea out of Indonesia’s hands and forcing the United States to side with the Dutch or seeming to “oppose the principle of self-determination.”

    Rostow recommended speaking frankly to the Dutch by warning them that the ultimate end of their policies would be military collision with Indonesia and that meaningful self- determination for “stone-age Papuans” would take too long. (197) At the U.N. General Assembly meeting in autumn 1961, the United States inspired a compromise resolution, which failed to obtain a 2/3 majority.

    The resolution was floated in the face of Indonesian opposition and temporarily worsened U.S.-Indonesian relations. White House advocates of a pro-Indonesian policy believed that the United States had acted not as an “honest Broker,” but as an advocate of the wrong side. (200-203) Sukarno interpreted the U.S. campaign at the United Nations as a retreat from the policy of neutrality. Sukarno professed to be “shattered.” (210)

    On December 1, 1961, Kennedy’s National Security Adviser, McGeorge Bundy, gave his support to Indonesia. Bundy told the President that “most of the specialists believed that the Secretary’s [Rusk's] respect for the Australians and dislike of Sukarno has led him to take a position in the UN debate which, if continued, can only favor the Communists.”

    Bundy realized that “Sukarno is not your own favorite statesman,” but he endorsed Rostow and Robert Johnson’s views that “no one in this towndoes not believe that, sooner or late, the Indonesia will get West Irian.” The United States must work with this trend and not allow the Soviet bloc to exploit the issue to draw Indonesia even closer to it. (205)

    Bundy’s intercession got the President’s attention and moved U.S. policy away from neutrality toward active support of Indonesia. (208-210) As a result, the United States encouraged both the Netherlands and Indonesia to engage in bilateral negotiations and suggested that U.N. Secretary-General U Thant should serve as a third party moderator. (218)

    Both sides were reluctant to enter negotiations without some guidelines. The Dutch insisted that the transfer of WNG have some provision for self-determination; the Indonesians required that the Dutch agree, as a prerequisite to the talks, that WNG’s administration (not its sovereignty) be transferred to Indonesia. (224-225)

    President Kennedy then sent his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to Indonesia and the Netherlands to encourage bilateral negotiations under U.N. aegis. While Robert Kennedy could give no assurances to the Indonesians that the Netherlands would agree to transfer WNG to Indonesia, he could say that the United States believed this was the likely outcome.

    Robert Kennedy himself feared he would be caught in the middle of the conflicting demands and be able to satisfy neither party. (226-230) Robert Kennedy encouraged Sukarno to talk without preconditions and offered the opinion that the result of the negotiations would end satisfactorily for Indonesia. (231)

    Kennedy sensed that Sukarno was willing to negotiate without preconditions so long as he knew that the United States would use its influence with the Netherlands to encourage a transfer. (232) Rusk was still unwilling to give the Indonesians an assurance that the Dutch would not accept as the basis for talks. (235)

    Sukarno inched closer toward talks without preconditions, but with a mutually negotiated agenda. (236, 237) Robert Kennedy’s discussions with the Dutch were guided by a Department of State-White House drafted telegram authorizing him to agree to the United States operating as the moderator of the talks, but insisting that the Netherlands agree that the agenda would include as an item the transfer of administration to Indonesia. (239)

    When Kennedy put his idea to the Dutch, they were shocked by what they considered a U.S. request for capitulation. A day after Robert Kennedy left The Hague, Luns considerably softened his opposition. (241) In March 1962, Luns came to Washington to meet with U.S. officials, including the President, and asked permission to reinforce Netherlands naval presence in WNG through transit of the Panama Canal.

    The President turned him down flat. (244, 245) After this painful signal, the Dutch agreed to secret talks with a third party. The Indonesians also agreed to talks without preconditions provided that the transfer of WNG could be the first issue raised by Indonesia. (246) Both sides clearly wanted an American as the third party and former Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker was offered and accepted the job. (248)

    The Ambassadorial level secret talks, held in Middleburg, Virginia, in late March 1962, began with promise but were soon stalemated, primarily because of Indonesia intransigence. To make matters worse, the Dutch and Indonesians engaged in sporadic naval engagements in the waters around WNG.

    It became clear in Washington that a demarche to Sukarno would be required to keep the negotiations moving. (251) Ellsworth Bunker proposed a formula whereby Indonesia was given administration of the territory and the Netherlands was assured that the United Nations would be involved in the process of self- determination for the inhabitants.

    The transfer process would take 2 years, with Indonesians replacing U.N. administrators during the second year. The United Nations would assist inhabitants in expressing their freedom of choice at a later date to be negotiated. (254) Sukarno agreed to the formula (255), but the Netherlands did not.

    They claimed it was a shocking betrayal by the United States. (256, 258) Dutch disappointment soon waned and they began to suggest that if the Bunker formula was modified to give greater assurances for free choice, they might be willing to accept it. (259) Komer, who had became so pro-Indonesia as to become the butt of jokes among the White House staff about being Sukarno’s personal representative, argued that the Dutch were stalling. (260, 261)

    Komer convinced the President to send Rusk a message suggesting that in a meeting with Luns in Athens, Rusk threaten to publish Bunker’s formula. (262) This new initiative convinced the Dutch to work on the basis of the Bunker formula, but they were not yet willing to accept Indonesian administration. (263)

    To get the Indonesians to resume secret talks, the Department instructed Jones to inform them that while the United States could not guarantee the success of the negotiations, there was a reasonable chance that they would succeed. (267) Komer’s idea of a public surfacing of the Bunker formula as a prod to the Dutch was accepted within the Department of State.

    It was released as a U.N. document on May 25. (269, 270) The next day, the Netherlands formally agreed to resume the Middleburg talks. After some hesitation, (272, 273), Indonesia also agreed. The outstanding issues for the talks were the Indonesian desire to shorten the 2-year transition period and the Netherlands insistence that it was the absolute minimum time for a transfer.

    Both sides were concerned about mechanisms for self-determination. Indonesia wanted to minimize the role of the United Nations; the Netherlands wanted to maximize it. (274) As the talks proceeded, the Indonesians proved difficult, insisting on a 1-year transition period, minimal U.N. participation, and special status for their paratrooper forces which had infiltrated into WNG.

    They threatened to recall Foreign Minister Subandrio, who had joined the talks in Middleburg. At Department of State suggestion (280), President Kennedy meet with Subandrio and told him that if the Indonesians resorted to force when they were on the brink of achieving one on the greatest diplomatic victories of all time, the United States would switch sides and support the Dutch. (281, 284, 285)

    In the face of this direct threat, Sukarno acceded to revised terms of understanding whereby the Dutch would transfer administration to the United Nations, which could then start transferring administration to Indonesia after May 1, 1963 (less than a year). Indonesian forces within WNG would be at the disposal of the U.N. authority, which could also use Netherlands and Indonesian officials.

    One year before “self-determination,” which could be no later than 1969, the United Nations would appoint a staff to advise and assist with arrangements. The Indonesian flag could be hoisted along with the U.N. flag after January 1, 1963. The agreement was almost a total victory for Indonesia and a defeat for the Netherlands, who wanted to leave the territory, but not on terms that assured that WNG would soon be part of Indonesia.

    The underlying reason that the Kennedy administration pressed the Netherlands to accept this agreement was that it believed that Cold War considerations of preventing Indonesia from going Communist overrode the Dutch case. The Kennedy administration then sought to capitalize on the good will it had won in Indonesia by establishing better relations with Sukarno and upgrading U.S. economic and military assistance programs. (286, 287)

    The Department of State produced an extensive plan of action for Indonesia which combined immediate actions and longer term goals. (291) The President agreed that the emergency actions, such $60-70 million in P.L. 480 food aid, $17 million in technical assistance, a modest military assistance program, and $15-20 million in grants for spare parts and start-up material, but wanted more work done on the longer range measures. (294)

    The plan to win over Indonesia had mixed results. Sukarno opposed the formation of the Malaysia Federation with threats and a guerrilla campaign. (300, 301) The Indonesian economy did not respond, and Sukarno was unable to introduce the kinds of reforms the United States believed that it required. (302)

    Ambassador Jones and staffers at the White House hoped that President Kennedy would accept Sukarno’s longstanding invitation to visit Indonesia, but scheduling difficulties prevented a visit in 1963. (293, 303) Indonesia pressed U.S. oil companies to provide Indonesia with a larger share of the proceeds.

    A mission by Governor Wilson Wyatt succeeded in defusing the potential crisis. (306-308) The United States shifted its focus from economic development to the more immediate problem of stabilizing the failing Indonesian economy, but with little success. (311-313, 316) Jones suggested that the downward trend in Indonesia made a Presidential trip even more important and hoped that a visit by Kennedy would moderate Sukarno.

    The Department agreed to inform Sukarno that Kennedy would visit Indonesia early in a second term provided Sukarno abandoned his policy of confrontation with the United Kingdom and Malaysia. (318) When informed of the possibility of a Kennedy visit, Sukarno was enthusiastic.

    On November 19, Jones, who was in Washington for consultations, received a commitment from the President to go to Indonesia. Three days later, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. The Johnson administration would face new challenges in U.S.-Indonesian relations. Malaysia

    A federation of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah), and Sarawak had been a British goal since 1960 and was an idea to which the United States gave tacit support. (329) The United States viewed the potential Malaysian Federation as a stabilizing and anti-Communist measure, but Indonesia and the Philippines both opposed it.

    Miffed at not being consulted, Sukarno convinced himnself it was a colonialist plot; the Philippines opposed the federation because of their claims to parts of North Borneo. The Philippines pursued its claim through diplomatic channels, and Indonesia embarked on a policy of confrontation and guerrilla war in early 1963. (330)

    One of Sukarno’s tactics was a demand for a referendum in the Borneo Territories under U.N. auspices. The United States supported the idea even though it delayed postponement of the inauguration of the federation. Rusk and Kennedy convinced the skeptical British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan that “a little give now may be worth the risk, especially if the likely alternative is a further step- up of subversive pressure.” (338)

    The United Nations reported on September 14, 1963, that the inhabitants of North Borneo and Sarawak favored joining Malaysia. Indonesia and the Philippines denounced the report; Indonesia stepped up its confrontation. (335) Australia sent troops to Malaysia to combat Indonesian subversion and hoped to obtain from the United States an assurance that its troops in Malaysia would be covered under the ANZUS Treaty.

    Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman agreed with the Australians in June 1963 that ANZUS should cover Australian troops, but only in the case of overt attacknot subversionby Indonesia. After Australia gave a formal commitment to defend Malaysia on September 23, 1963, President Kennedy wanted further clarification; he did not want the Australians to turn around one day and say “where are the Americans.”

    Nor did Kennedy want to fight another war in Southeast Asia. (337, 338) On October 16, McGeorge Bundy handed the Australian Ambassador a paper that promised that the United States would consult with Australia about appropriate political and military support if its troops were attacked. In view of extensive U.S. commitments, Australia could count only on U.S. air and sea forces and logistical support in the last resort. (343)

    In late 1963, the United States encouraged Philippine- Indonesian-Malaysian contacts through quiet diplomacy in conjunction with the British, Australians, and New Zealanders while at the same time trying to use U.S. economic aid as a lever on Sukarno. (342, 345) The results were mixed and the Indonesian campaign of confrontation continued as a serious problem for the Johnson administration.

    Office of the Historian Bureau of Public Affairs January 1995


    http://kkampjogyanews.blogspot.com/2008/05/indonesias-1969-takeover-of-west-papua.html?zx=3a04cde3427c0770

    The Implementation of Special Autonomy in West Papua, Indonesia …

    Senin, 12 Mei 2008
    Diposkan oleh EDOWAY YUNUS BLOK NEWS OF WEST PAPUA di 08:13

    http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA462594

    Accession Number : ADA462594
    Title : The Implementation of Special Autonomy in West Papua, Indonesia: Problems and Recommendations
    Descriptive Note : Master’s thesis
    Corporate Author : NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY CA
    Personal Author(s) : Halmin, Muhammad Y.
    Handle / proxy Url :
    writeHandle(“http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA462594&#8243 ;);

    http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA462594

    Check NTIS Availability…
    Report Date : DEC 2006
    Pagination or Media Count : 95

    Abstract :

    West Papua in the easternmost area of Indonesia has long been recognized as one of its most controversial provinces. Since its integration into the Republic of Indonesia in 1969, recurring controversy has colored many aspects of West Papuans everyday lives. The problems in West Papua are rooted to the way it was originally integrated, which, according to some scholars, is unacceptable.

    They argue that the Indonesian government manipulated the self-determination process and its results. The government, however, has always denied this claim, noting in its legal argumentation, for instance, the involvement of the United Nations and the international community in the process of self-determination, known as the Act of Free Choice.

    Far from being resolved, the problems in West Papua have been exacerbated by the Indonesian government s policies, which rely heavily on a strict security approach in an effort to suppress the secessionist movement. As part of its attempt to address the problems comprehensively, the Indonesian government introduced a special autonomy bill for West Papua in the late 2001.

    The bill, which was drafted mostly by indigenous West Papuans, passed the Indonesian parliament as Law No. 21 in November. Implementation of the law, however, has not worked as expected. Many of the law s requirements have either not been implemented or have been only minimally implemented, even five years after of the law s promulgation.

    As a result, many West Papuans, including many scholars, have become increasingly skeptical and cynical. Obviously, the Indonesian government must deal with and resolve the problems inherent in the implementation law s requirements. This thesis addresses some of those problems and provides recommendations for potential solutions.

    Descriptors : *INTERNATIONAL POLITICS, *PROBLEM SOLVING, *INDONESIA, REQUIREMENTS, GOVERNMENT(FOREIGN), SECURITY, UNITED NATIONS, AUTONOMIC AGENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, SOLUTIONS(GENERAL), THESES, DISTRIBUTION, COMMUNITIES

    Subject Categories : GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL SCIENCE
    Distribution Statement : APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

    Search DTIC’s Public STINET for similiar documents. Members of the public may purchase hardcopy documents from the National Technical Information Service.

    http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/as00_faleomavaega/westpapua.html

    December 16, 2005

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    WASHINGTON, D.C.—FALEOMAVAEGA AND CONGRESSMAN DONALD PAYNE CALL UPON AFRICAN NATIONS TO REQUEST UN REVIEW OF WEST PAPUA

    Congressman Eni Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa), Ranking Member of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, and Congressman Donald Payne (D-New Jersey), Ranking Member of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights & International Operations, announced today that they have called upon the African nations to request a review of the United Nation’s actions in West Papua.

    The Congressmen’s request comes in response to a petition letter they sent to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on March 14, 2005 in which they requested his support in conducting a review of the 1969 Act of No Choice in which 1,025 Papuan elders were coerced and manipulated into voting unanimously on behalf of 80,000 Papuans to become a part of Indonesia rather than an independent nation.

    Although the UN sanctioned the 1969 Act of No Choice, the Act is generally regarded in the international community as a fraudulent tactic that was used by former President Suharto and his military regime to claim control of West Papua, a territory rich in natural resources including gold, silver, copper, oil and gas.

    In fact, recently declassified US documents show that the Indonesia government knew that allowing an open referendum would lead to West Papuan independence. In a letter dated September 26, 2005, the Secretary General informed Congressman Faleomavaega and Congressman Payne that he would consider a review of the 1969 Act and the UN’s conduct in West Papua if the General Assembly called for it.

    Should the Assembly decide to revisit this issue, Secretary General Annan has assured that he will do his utmost to implement the Assembly’s mandate. For this reason, Congressman Faleomavaega and Congressman Payne have called upon the Ambassadors representing the African nations before the UN to initiate a call for a General Assembly review.

    Historically, the African nations raised objections to the 1969 Act of No Choice. Bolivian Ambassador Ortiz-Sans, who monitored the vote on behalf of the United Nations, also noted that the referendum had occurred in the absence of political freedoms guaranteed by the 1962 New York Agreement brokered by the United States that set the framework for Dutch withdrawal from West Papua.

    Ambassador Otiz-Sanz issued the following statement in his report:

    “I regret to have to express my reservation regarding the implementation of Article XXII of the (New York) Agreement relating to ‘the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and of assembly of the inhabitants of the area.’ In spite of my constant efforts, this important provision was not fully implemented and the (Indonesian) Administration exercised at all times a tight political control over the population.”

    In spite of the Ambassador’s report, testimonials from the press, the opposition of fifteen countries and the cries for help from the Papuans themselves, the UN sanctioned Indonesia’s act and, on September 10, 1969, West Papua became a providence of brutal, Indonesian rule.

    Since Indonesia seized control of West Papua, the native Papuans have suffered blatant human rights abuses, including extrajudicial execution, torture, sexual violence and mutilation as well as, according to Afrim Djonbalic’s 1998 statement to the UN, “environmental degradation, natural resource exploitation, and commercial dominance of immigrant communities.”

    This exploitation of resources includes reserves of gold, copper, nickel, oil and gas which have been valued at over $54 billion. Local labor has been used in the extraction of these resources with little or no compensation to Papuans.

    A recent study by the Lowenstein Human Rights Clinic at Yale University states:

    “The historical and contemporary evidence strongly suggests that the Indonesian government has committed proscribed acts with the intent to destroy the West Papuans as such in violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the customary international law prohibition this Convention embodies.”

    In view of this study, it should be noted that native West Papua New Guineans differ linguistically and racially from the majority of Indonesians. The Papuans are Melanesian and believed to be of African descent while the majority of Indonesians are of Javanese descent. Studies like the aforementioned show that there is a strong indication that the Indonesians are committing genocide against the West Papuans through oppression and acts of violence and these acts of genocide may be race-based.

    For this and other reasons, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and 174 parliamentarians and 80 nongovernmental agencies from around the world have written to Secretary General Kofi Annan asking that a review be initiated. In turn, Faleomavaega and Congressman Payne have called upon the African nations to call for a General Assembly review.

    Additionally, the Congressmen included historic language in the U.S. Foreign Relations Authorization bill for FY 2006 and 2007 which requires the U.S. State Department to submit to Congress a report analyzing the 1969 Act. The language also requires the State Department to submit a report detailing implementation of special autonomy for Papua and Aceh. Such reports shall include

    1. an assessment of the extent to which each province has enjoyed an increase in revenue allocations and decision making authority;
    2. a description of access by international press and non-governmental organizations to each province;
    3. an assessment of the role played by local civil society in governance and decision making;
    4. a description of force levels and conduct of Indonesian security forces in each province; and
    5. a description of United States efforts to promote respect for human rights in each province.

    The U.S. House of Representatives passed this legislation on July 20, 2005. As this matter is now pending between the House and Senate, Congressman Faleomavaega and Congressman Payne are determined to keep Indonesia under the spotlight until exploitation, violence and racism in West Papua is brought to an end.


    http://papuapost.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/west-papua-advocacy-team-to-secretary-of-state-clinton-on-indonesian-military-operation-in-puncak-jaya-west-papua/

    West Papua Advocacy Team to Secretary of State Clinton on Indonesian military operation in Puncak Jaya, West Papua

    Posted on November 7, 2011

    The Honorable Hillary Clinton
    Secretary of State
    Department of State
    Washington, D.C.

    July 20, 2011

    Secretary Clinton:

    The West Papua Advocacy Team is writing to you on the eve of your visit to Indonesia to request that you use this opportunity to raise with senior Indonesians the Indonesian military operation that is occurring in the Puncak Jaya regency of West Papua.

    Media reports have indicated that up to 600 Indonesian military (TNI) personal are involved in “sweeping” operations in the region. This operation is only the latest in a series of such operations which the Indonesian military has conducted in the Puncak Jaya region over many years.

    These operations have had a devastating human toll including civilian casualties, destruction of civilian homes, churches, public buildings gardens and livestock as well as broad displacement of civilians from towns and villages, often to nearby mountains and jungle. Due in part to routine military closure of these zones of conflict to humanitarian operations, displaced civilians suffer and die as a result of lack of food, shelter and access to medical care.

    These operations have had a devastating human toll including civilian casualties, destruction of civilian homes, churches, public buildings gardens and livestock as well as broad displacement of civilians from towns and villages, often to nearby mountains and jungle. Due in part to routine military closure of these zones of conflict to humanitarian operations, displaced civilians suffer and die as a result of lack of food, shelter and access to medical care.

    Typically, military forces, including forces which benefit from U.S. government equipment and training, fail to distinguish between those they are targeting, the lightly armed Free Papua Movement (the OPM), and the general public. While the OPM is committed to peaceful dialogue, it retains the right to self defense and protecting the local people if attacked.

    Although the security forces blame all incidents in the area on the OPM, many attacks on the TNI are by unknown attackers. Some of these arise as a result of disputes related to commercial interests among military units and/or with police units which compete over exploitation of natural resources and extortion of local and international commercial operations.

    In the current sweep operation media reports indicate four civilians, including one women and 3 children, were wounded on July 12 when Indonesian troops from the Infantry Battalion 753, who are based in Nabire, fired into huts in the village of Kalome while searching for members of the Free Papua Movement (OPM). Thus far, the military has refused to acknowledge this incident.

    In May the military began a “socializing program” in Puncak Jaya involving up to 300 Army, Air Force and Navy personnel . The program is proposed to include the renovating of homes, churches and markets. The military personnel, as part of the program, also lecture local Papuans at Papuans Sunday church gatherings.

    Local people, according to media and other accounts, have described the program as in reality only a shield and a cover-up of the military and police’s violation of human rights abuses that have transpired in the region for many years.

    Papuan civil society leaders, non-governmental organizations, churches and ordinary civilians have long called for transformation of Papua into a “Land of Peace,” a concept that would demilitarize West Papua and end the Indonesian government’s reliance on a “security approach” to address peaceful, political dissent.

    Currently, many Papuans are incarcerated in prisons due to their peaceful exercise of freedoms of speech and assembly which are denied them by the Indonesian government. We urge you to use the opportunity of your visit to Indonesia to call on the Indonesian President to halt all military operations in West Papua and return all military personal to their barracks as a way of easing tension and saving lives.

    We also urge you to raise with senior Indonesians, the plight of dozens of Papuan prisoners of conscience who were jailed as result of peaceful dissent and who now face health and even life-threatening conditions in Indonesian notorious prisons.

    Yours respectfully,
    The West Papua Advocacy Team


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Agreement

    New York Agreement

    9 February 2012 at 12:50

    The Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands Concerning West New Guinea (West Irian), also known as the New York Agreement, was a treaty signed between Indonesia and the Netherlands on the political status of West New Guinea. Signed at the United Nations Headquarters in New York on 15 August 1962, it ended a territorial dispute existing between the two countries since the Indonesian War of Independence in 1949.

    The run-up to the agreement polarized the United Nations between the Third World countries, which supported Indonesia’s bid to negotiate with the Netherlands for the territory, and the Western countries, which supported the Netherlands’ sovereignty over the territory.

    The United States, seeking to improve historically poor relations with Indonesia and to prevent a potential opening for the Soviet bloc, mediated between the two countries, pressuring the Netherlands to accept a United Nations Trusteeship for the territory before transfer over sovereignty to Indonesia and then a referendum in West New Guinea on the territory’s future.

    From 1962 to 1969, the New York Agreement was implemented, culminating in the Act of Free Choice of 1969 in which representatives of West New Guinea reached a consensus to remain with Indonesia. The United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution 84-0 affirming the Agreement’s fulfillment, with criticism and abstentions from some countries. The implementation of the New York Agreement remains a common grievance of supporters of West New Guinea independence, because territory natives were not involved in its formation.

    Background

    “… if Java, Sumatra, etc., should be severed from the Netherlands within the forseeable future—which God forbid!—then that does not need to be the case of New Guinea. New Guinea does not belong to the Indies Archipelago either geographically or geologically…. Neither the Javanese, the Acehnese, nor the inhabitants of Palembang have any right to this ‘empty’ country. The Dutch were the first to occupy it, and have the right to use it for the population surplus of the Netherlands …”

    —Colonization advocate P. E. Winkler, 1936[1]

    The origins of the dispute over Dutch New Guinea are agreed to have originated in the pre-World War II need to find a homeland for the Eurasian Indo people.[2][1] According to C.L.M. Penders, “None” of the other reasons, including to develop the island,[2] “advanced by the Netherlands for the continuation of their rule of West New Guinea” rationally served the Dutch national interest enough to hold a territory that would lead it to lose so much business and international goodwill.[1]

    Beginning in the 1920s, large numbers of unemployed Indo people in Java persuaded the Dutch government to set up colonies in northern West New Guinea, which eventually failed to give the colonists the prosperity they expected. However, New Guinea was conceived in the Dutch imagination as a “promised land”, and various right-wing groups such as the Vaderlandsche Club and the Dutch Nazi Party lobbied hard for a “white Dutch province in the Indies”.[1]

    Although this province was never achieved, the Indos maintained a privileged and resented position in Indonesia, such that they were the strongest advocates for an autonomous New Guinea.[1] From 1945 during the Indonesian National Revolution, the Netherlands tried to negotiate for a special place for New Guinea in various conferences with Indonesian nationalists, with the Linggadjati Agreement among other things reserving New Guinea as a place of settlement for Indos.[2]

    However, during the Dutch–Indonesian Round Table Conference of 1949, both Indonesia and the Netherlands could not agree on the status of New Guinea, with the Netherlands arguing that it should keep West New Guinea for the eventual self-determination of the natives, once those inhabitants had become sufficiently “mature”.[2]

    The resulting accord was unclear on the final status of New Guinea, although the Dutch Labor Party defeated an amendment that would have explicitly excluded New Guinea from Indonesian independence.[1] From 1951, the Indonesian government interpreted the results of the Round Table Conference as giving it sovereignty over all of the former Dutch East Indies, including New Guinea.[2]

    Throughout negotiations with the Indonesians, the Netherlands maintained it could give up sovereignty over Dutch New Guinea, because the conservative parties in the Dutch parliament, deeply humiliated by Indonesian independence and wanting to maintain a colonial stronghold in the area, would not vote to ratify any such agreement.[1]

    When the Indonesian government withdrew from the Netherlands-Indonesia Union due to frustration at the slow pace of talks over New Guinea, the Netherlands felt itself relieved from any obligation to continue negotiations on the issue.[2]

    Indonesia, supported by all of the African and Asian nations except nationalist China, tried to pass a United Nations General Assembly resolution urging the Netherlands to negotiate with it on the status of West New Guinea, but the resolutions were blocked by the opposition of all of the Western nations except Greece.[3]

    Indonesia gained more international support for negotiations with the Netherlands during the Geneva Summit and the Asian–African Conference in 1955, after which Dutch newspapers and churches, previously stalwartly in favor of keeping New Guinea, advocated bringing New Guinea “into a quieter sphere” of United Nations Trusteeship.[3]

    Nevertheless, in 1956, the Netherlands amended its constitution to include West New Guinea as a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, although the government excluded an amendment that would have specified self-determination as the goal of Dutch sovereignty over the territory.[3]

    Inside West New Guinea, the Netherlands liberalized political parties, but banned pro-Indonesia parties as subversive.[4] In response to the Netherlands’ hardening, Indonesia’s position on New Guinea gradually shifted to say that the people of New Guinea already exercised their right to self-determination with the Proclamation of Indonesian Independence in 1945.[2]

    After the third and final vote in the United Nations General Assembly in 1957, in which a resolution urging Dutch–Indonesian dialogue, with the support of a majority of nations representing the majority of the world’s people, was blocked by the colonial powers, the Indonesian foreign minister Subandrio said that it would no longer seek to resolve the “West Irian” (West New Guinea) issue at the United Nations.[3]

    Mass strikes and illegal seizures broke out in Indonesia against Dutch businesses in 1958, organized by Communist Party, youth, and veterans’ groups, and Dutch nationals fled the country.[3] Diplomatic ties were severed with the Netherlands in 1960.[2]

    Negotiations

    McGeorge Bundy (pictured in 1967), National Security Advisor to the President, pushed John F. Kennedy towards a more pro-Indonesian position.[5]

    During the 1950s, the United States had poor relations with Indonesia, because of its secret support of antigovernment rebels in Sumatra and its unwillingness to support the Indonesian claim to West New Guinea.[5] Indonesia was also displeased with the “virtually unanimous hostility of the American press” in its international campaign for West New Guinea.[3]

    At the inauguration of President John F. Kennedy in 1961, the United States Ambassador to Indonesia, supported by the White House National Security Council, proposed a seven-point plan “to prevent Indonesia from falling under communist control and to win it over to the west”, which included promising Indonesia reunion with West New Guinea.[5]

    The Government’s Bureau of European Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency and US Secretary of State Dean Rusk opposed the plan, both because of hostility towards the Indonesian President Sukarno, who had collaborated with the Japanese,[1] and support for the Netherlands, a NATO ally.[5]

    Both supporters of Indonesia and supporters of the Netherlands in the administration casted their positions as favorable to anticolonialism.[6] The Dutch position argued that the native Papuan people were racially different from Indonesia, that incorporation into Indonesia would be “substitution of brown colonialism for white colonialism”, and that the “backward” Papuans were not ready for independence;

    while the Indonesian position argued that Indonesia was already ethnically diverse, that Indonesia wanted to reunite territories separated by colonialism, and that Dutch arguments about democracy were “a trick” to create “at the doorstep of Indonesia a puppet state… under Dutch tutelage”.[6] Although the idea of Papuan independence appealed to senior advisers in the US Government, few thought it realistic.

    US officials were also concerned about world opinion in favor of Indonesia; diplomatic displays of Third World solidarity were increasing, and in January 1962, Egypt closed its Suez Canal to Dutch ships as a protest against the Netherlands’ New Guinea policy. In mid-January, President Kennedy traveled to Jakarta and announced that the United States, “as a former colony, is committed to anti-colonialism”.[6]

    He later met with both the Dutch foreign minister and Sukarno, with both agreeing to a United Nations Trusteeship but disagreeing on the details. When the United States sponsored a “compromise” resolution in the United Nations which Indonesia opposed, relations with Indonesia soured.

    In December, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy decisively advised Kennedy towards a more pro-Indonesian position, lest the “Soviet bloc… draw Indonesia even closer to it”.[5] American-mediated secret Ambassadorial level talks began in March 1962, without preconditions, but Sukarno was skeptical of American intentions.[5]

    An outline of the plan by American diplomat Ellsworth Bunker in 1962 proposed that the Netherlands transfer control over New Guinea to neutral United Nations administrators, who would be gradually replaced by Indonesian administrators, and then completely to Indonesia, which would then be required to organize a referendum “to give the Papuans freedom” with the United Nations secretary general and other United Nations personnel.[2]

    The Netherlands responded that the proposal was a “shocking betrayal by the United States”,[5] originally wanting the referendum to take place under UN administration, although after the United States threatened to make the negotiations public, it acceeded with the addition of a “right to self-determination” into the agreement.[5]

    Foreign minister Subandrio, who regarded UN supervision and organization of the referendum as a “humiliation for Indonesia”, only agreed to a set of pared-down guidelines for the plebiscite[2] when the United States threatened to “switch sides and support the Dutch”.[5] The final version of the agreement provided the following parameters for the “act of free choice”:

    Musyawarah (consultative councils) would be instructed on procedures to assess the will of the population. The actual date of the act would be completed before 1969. The question in the act would allow the inhabitants to decide whether to stay or to separate from Indonesia

    All adults would be allowed to participate in the act of free choice.

    On 15 August 1962, representatives from Indonesia and the Netherlands signed the “Agreement between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands Concerning West New Guinea (West Irian)” at the United Nations Headquarters in New York.[4]

    Implementation

    The New York Agreement fulfilled the dream of a “Republic of Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke”.[4] Indonesian flags mark those settlements within the regions of Aceh (left) and West New Guinea, both highlighted. Some members of the quasi-legislative New Guinea Council established under the Dutch were disappointed that the Netherlands had signed the agreement without consulting the Council.

    Nevertheless, the Council decided to support the agreement, and to cooperate with United Nations and Indonesian authorities in keeping peace and order. A small minority of Council members, including Nicolaas Jouwe, refused to support the Agreement and went into exile in the Netherlands.[4] The period of United Nations administration ended in 1 May 1963, as envisioned by the New York Agreement.[7]

    Fernando Ortiz-Sanz, the United Nations Secretary-General’s representative in New Guinea, observed and approved the process of musyawarah during March and April 1969 for the final Act of Free Choice, although recommending that the councils be enlarged to better comply with the adult eligibility provision of the New York Agreement.[2]

    In his report, he said that the majority of petitions he received from the New Guineans were pro-Indonesian, although this assessment of local opinion is contradicted by reports from foreign embassies.[7] Between July and August 1969, the Act of Free Choice overwhelmingly concluded in favor of staying with Indonesia.[2]

    Professor of International Law H.F. Van Panhuys attributes the lopsided results to the lack of demilitarization of the territory, the process of musyawarah (“talking until an unanimous decision is reached… [was] not conductive to an atmosphere in which people could secretly and therefore fearlessly express their preference”), and the lack of an option for union with the Netherlands.[2]

    At the United States General Assembly, a group of African states, led by Ghana, denounced the Act of Free Choice “Moslem imperialism” and “Asian racialism”. Other states such as India refuted the charges and celebrated Indonesian unity.

    In October 1969 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution 84 to 0 with 30 abstentions[4] that noted “with appreciation the fulfillment… [of] the 1962 Agreement” and thanked Indonesia for “its efforts to promote the economic and social development of West Irian”.[7]

    The dissenting African states proposed an amendment to direct a second referendum in 1975, but it failed because of Indonesian and American opposition.[8] The Dutch government accepted the results, and said that the process was compliant with the New York Agreement.[2]

    Reflecting on the vote, retired under-secretary-general Chakravarthy Narasimhan said in 2001, “The mood at the United Nations was to get rid of this problem as quickly as possible”,[8] and “[M]y heart isn’t bleeding [for the Papuans]“.[7] The United States partially achieved its goal “to win [Indonesia] over to the West”, although the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation and the struggling Indonesian economy cooled relations.[5]

    For Indonesia, the implementation of the New York Agreement completed the early Indonesian nationalist goal of what Sukarno called a “Republic of Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke”, and represented successful resistance against partition on ethnic or religious grounds.[4]

    On the other hand, the implementation of the New York Agreement is one of the most cited grievances of the militant Free Papua Movement (OPM), and the years immediately following its implementation were the most violent in the emerging guerrilla conflict with independence supporters, as OPM fighters kidnapped and attacked police, military, and transmigrant targets while the Indonesian military strafed whole villages in response.[8]

    Although supporters of independence for West New Guinea regard the Act of Free Choice as illegitimate and noncompliant with the New York Agreement, the United Nations officially maintains that West New Guinea’s status as part of Indonesia is “final”.[8] In 2002, a nationalist assembly of Papuans led by independence activist Theys Eluay declared the New York Agreement “unlawful and morally unacceptable, because Representatives from [West New Guinea] were not involved in it”.[8]


    http://everything.explained.at/New_York_Agreement/

    New York Agreement Explained

    The New York Agreement is a document brokered by the United States on behalf of the Indonesian government in 1962 to transfer sovereignty of Western New Guinea from the Netherlands to Indonesia. The document was orchestrated by the USA in secret and without consent of the peoples of western New Guinea, after the Indonesian invasion commenced in December 1961.

    At the insistence of the Dutch government, the document also included a guarantee that the Papuan people would be allowed an ‘Act of Free Choice’. In violation to Articles 15 to 18, Indonesia instead undertook a program to dismantle the Papuan education and government systems; removed personal liberties and in 1969 orchestrated a corrupt ‘Act of Free Choice’, in which representatives were chosen by Jakarta and forced, under threat of execution, to vote for integration.

    Although Indonesia had in January 1962 pledged support for a west Papuan plebiscite which it then reaffirmed in the New York Agreement; Lieut. Gen. Basuki Rahmat in December 1966 announced Indonesia did not intend to allow such a plebiscite. By 1968 refugees fleeing Indonesian maladministration from were flowing from western to eastern Papua, disappointed that even freedoms expressed in Article 22 Section 1 of the New York Agreement were not being honored.

    External references

    Document Release Marks 35th Anniversary of Controversial Vote and Annexation, government telegrams reveal foreknowledge of Indonesian intentions and abuses in West New Guinea, http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB128/

    [ftp://ftp.halcyon.com/pub/FWDP/Oceania/jfkpapua.txt Secret letter of US President to PM of the Netherlands]
    ‘US Foreign Relations, 1961-63, Vol XXIII, Southeast Asia’, http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summaries/950306_FRUS_XXIII_1961-63.html
    Text of 1962 New York Agreement


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_West_Papua

    History of West Papua

    8 May 2012 at 16:46

    The History of West Papua, as a region and not a province, refers to the history of the Indonesian western half of the island of New Guinea and other smaller islands to its west. The eastern half of the island is Papua New Guinea.

    Human habitation is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago.[1] Trade between New Guinea and neighboring Indonesian islands was documented as early as the seventh century, and archipelagic rule of New Guinea by the 13th. The Netherlands made claim to the region and commenced missionary work in nineteenth century.

    The region was incorporated into the Indonesian republic in the 1960s. Following the 1998 commencement of reforms across Indonesia, Papua and other Indonesian provinces received greater regional autonomy. In 2001, “Special Autonomy” status was granted to the region, although to date, implementation has been partial.[2] The region was divided into the provinces of Papua and West Papua in 2003.

    Pre-colonial history

    Papuan habitation of the region is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago.[1] Austronesian peoples migrating through Maritime Southeast Asia settled several thousand years. These groups have developed diverse cultures and languages in situ; there are over 300 languages and two hundred additional dialects in the region.

    At the beginning of the seventh century, the Sumatra-based empire of Srivijaya (7th century–13th century) engaged in trade relations with western New Guinea, initially taking items like sandalwood and birds-of-paradise in tribute to China, but later making slaves out of the natives.[3] The rule of the Java-based empire of Majapahit (1293–1527) extended to the western fringes of New Guinea.[4]

    On 13 June 1545, Ortiz de Retez, in command of the San Juan, left port in Tidore, an island of the East Indies and sailed to reach the northern coast of the island of New Guinea, which he ventured along as far as the mouth of the Mamberamo River. He took possession of the land for the Spanish Crown, in the process giving the island the name by which it is known today. He called it Nueva Guinea owing to the resemblance of the local inhabitants to the peoples of the Guinea coast in West Africa.

    Netherlands New Guinea

    Dutch expeditions in Netherlands New Guinea 1907–1915.

    In 1660, the Dutch recognised the Sultan of Tidore’s sovereignty over New Guinea. New Guinea thus became notionally Dutch as the Dutch held power over Tidore. In 1793, Britain attempted to establish a settlement near Manokwari, however, it failed and by 1824 Britain and the Netherlands agreed that the western half of the island would become part of the Dutch East Indies.

    In 1828 the Dutch established a settlement in Lobo (near Kaimana) which also failed. Almost 30 years later, Germans established the first missionary settlement on an island near Manokwari.

    While in 1828 the Dutch claimed the south coast west of the 141st meridian and the north coast west of Humboldt Bay in 1848, they did not try to develop the region again until 1896; they established settlements in Manokwari and Fak-Fak in response to perceived Australian ownership claims from the eastern half of New Guinea.

    Great Britain and Germany had recognised the Dutch claims in treaties of 1885 and 1895. At much the same time, Britain claimed south-east New Guinea, later known as the Territory of Papua, and Germany claimed the northeast, later known as the Territory of New Guinea.

    Dutch activity in the region remained in the first half of the twentieth century, notwithstanding the 1923 establishment of the Nieuw Guinea Beweging (New Guinea Movement) in the Netherlands by ultra right-wing supporters calling for Dutchmen to create a tropical Netherlands in Papua.

    This prewar movement without full government support was largely unsuccessful in its drive, but did coincide with the development of a plan for Eurasian settlement of the Dutch Indies to establish Dutch farms in northern West New Guinea. This effort also failed as most returned to Java disillusioned, and by 1938 just 50 settlers remained near Hollandia and 258 in Manokwari. The Dutch established the Boven Digul camp in Tanahmerah, in Dutch New Guinea, as a prison for Indonesian nationalists.

    World War II

    The region became important in the War in the Pacific upon the Netherland’s declaration of war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In 1942, the northern coast of West New Guinea and the nearby islands were occupied by Japan. In 1944, forces led by American general Douglas MacArthur launched a four-phase campaign from neighbouring Papua New Guinea to liberate Dutch New Guinea from the Japanese.

    Phase 1 was the capture of Hollandia (now Jayapura). Involving 80,000 Allied troops it was the largest amphibious operation of the war in the southwest Pacific. Phase 2 was the capture of Sarmi and was met with strong Japanese resistance. The capture of Biak to control the airfield and nearby Numfor was Phase 3.

    Hard battles were fought on Biak which was exacerbated by Allied intelligence underestimating the strength of Japanese forces. The fourth and final phase was the push to Japanese airbases on Morotai and towards the Philippines. The Allies also fought for control of Merauke as they feared it could be used as a base for Japanese air attacks against Australia.

    With local approval, the United States constructed a headquarters for Gen. Douglas MacArthur at Hollandia (now Jayapura) and over twenty US bases and hospitals intended as a staging point for operations taking of the Philippines. West New Guinean farms supplied food for the half million US troops.

    Papuan men went into battle to carry the wounded, acted as guides and translators, and provided a range of services, from construction work and carpentry to serving as machine shop workers and mechanics. Following the end of the war, the Dutch retained possession of West New Guinea from 1945.

    Indonesian independence

    Upon the Japanese surrender in the Pacific, Indonesian nationalists declared Indonesian independence and claimed all of the territory of the Dutch East Indies, including western New Guinea, as part of the Republic of Indonesia. A four and half year diplomatic and armed struggle ensued between the Dutch and Indonesian republicans.

    It ended in December 1949 with the Netherlands recognising Indonesian sovereignty over the Dutch East Indies with the exception of Dutch New Guinea. Unable to reach a compromise on the region, the conference closed with the parties agreeing to discuss the issue within one year.

    In December 1950[5] the United Nations requested the Special Committee on Decolonization to accept transmission of information regarding the territory in accord with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations. After repeated Indonesian claims to possession of Dutch New Guinea, the Netherlands invited Indonesia to present its claim before an International Court of Law. Indonesia declined the offer.

    In attempt to prevent Indonesia taking control of the region, the Dutch significantly raised development spending off its low base,[6] and encouraged Papuan nationalism. They began building schools and colleges to train professional skills with the aim of preparing them for self-rule by 1970.

    A naval academy was opened in 1956, and Papuan troops and naval cadets began service by 1957. A small western elite developed with a growing political awareness attuned to the idea of independence and close links to neighbouring eastern New Guinea which was administered by Australia.[7] Local Council elections were held and Papuan representatives elected from 1955.

    After news that the Hague was considering a United States plan to trade the territory to United Nations administration, Papuan Councillors met for six hours in the New Guinea Council building on 19 October 1961 to elect a National Committee which drafted a Manifesto for Independence & Self-government, a National flag (Morning Star), State Seal, selected a national anthem (“Oh My Land Papua”), and called for the people to be known as Papuans.

    The New Guinea Council voted unanimous support of these proposals on 30 October 1961, and on 31 October 1961 presented the Morning Star flag and Manifesto to Governor Platteel, who recognized the flag and anthem on 18 November 1961, and these ordinances came into effect on 1 December 1961. The Morning Star, flag of West Papua, was designed by the New Guinea Council in 1961. Its display is prohibited in some circumstances in Indonesia.

    Incorporation into Indonesia

    Sukarno made a take over of western New Guinea a focus of his continuing struggle against Dutch imperialism and part of a broader Third World conflict with Western imperialists.[8] Both of Sukarno’s key pillars of support, the Indonesian Communist Party and Indonesian army supported his expansionism.[9]

    In December 1961, President Sukarno created a Supreme Operations Command for the “liberation of Irian”. In January 1962, Suharto, recently promoted to major General, was appointed to lead Operation Mandala, a joint army-navy-air force command. This formed the military side of the Indonesian campaign to win the territory.[10]

    Indonesian forces had previously infiltrated the territory using small boats from nearby islands. Operations Pasukan Gerilya 100 (November 1960) and Pasukan Gerilya 200 (September 1961), were followed around the time of Suharto’s appointment by Pasukan Gerilya 300 with 115 troops leaving Jakarta on four Jaguar class torpedo boats (15 January).

    They were intercepted in the Aru Sea and the lead boat was sunk. 51 survivors were picked up after flotilla commander Commodore Yos Sudarso went down with his boat.[11] Parachute drops were made onto the swampy south coast away from the main concentration of Dutch forces.

    The commandos were thwarted by tall trees on which they were snared and by the swampy terrain which made them wet and ill, and their equipment was lost and damaged. Having been prepared for eventual independence by the Dutch, Papuan fighters attacked the paratroopers or handed them over to Dutch authorities.

    Of the 1,429 troops dropped into the region, 216 were killed or never found, and 296 were captured.[12] While Dutch casualties were relatively few, they knew that a military campaign to retain the region would require protracted jungle warfare. Unwilling to repeat the events of 1945-1949, the Dutch agreed to American mediation.

    Supporting the secret talks was the new American President, John F Kennedy, who said that compromise “will inevitably be unsatisfactory in some degree to both sides”. Kennedy took the advice of American ambassador to Indonesia, Howard Jones, and that of his own National Security Council, which was counter to the views of the Dutch and the CIA.

    Kennedy sent his brother Robert to Jakarta to solicit entry into negotiations without pre-conditions. Sukarno had hinted at releasing Allen Pope, who was sentenced to death for bombing Ambon four years previously, however, he now offered to release Pope in exchange for America’s support against the Dutch.

    In July 1962, Suharto’s Mandala Command was preparing to resolve the military campaign with a major combined air and sea assault on the trade and communications centre of Biak Island, which was the location of a Dutch military base and the only jet airstrip.[12][13]

    However, this risky operation did not eventuate as continuing US efforts to have the Netherlands secretly negotiate the transfer of the territory to Indonesian administration succeeded in creating the “New York Agreement”, which was signed on 15 August 1962.[12] The Australian government, which had previously supported of Papuan independence, also reversed its policy to support incorporation with Indonesia.[14][15]

    The vaguely-worded agreement, ratified in the UN on 21 September 1962, required authority to be transferred to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) on 1 October 1962, and that once UNTEA had informed the public of the terms of the Agreement, administration of the territory would transfer to Indonesia after 1 May 1963, until such time as Indonesia allowed the Papuans to determine whether they wanted independence or be part of Indonesia.

    On 1 May 1963, UNTEA transferred total administration of West New Guinea to the Republic of Indonesia. The capital Hollandia was renamed Kota Baru for the transfer to Indonesian administration and on 5 September 1963, West Irian was declared a “quarantine territory” with Foreign Minister Subandrio administrating visitor permits.

    The Sukarno-era “West Irian Liberation Statue” in Jakarta.

    In 1969, the United Nations supervised the Act of Free Choice in which the Indonesian government used the procedure of musyawarah, a consensus of elders. With Papuan nationalism not yet sufficient enough to contest the arguments for integration,[16] a consensus for integration was reached amongst the 1,054 representatives from Papua. Soon after, the region was renamed “West Irian” and became the 26th province of Indonesia.

    West Papua within Indonesia

    The Free Papua Movement (OPM) engaged in a small-scale conflict with the Indonesian military. A human-rights advocate alleges documentation of 921 deaths from military operations in the region between 1965 and 1999.[17] Seeking money and international recognition, OPM held thirteen scientists and others conducting highland forestry research hostage for 4 months in 1996.

    After failed negotiations with the International Committee of the Red Cross failed, Suharto’s son-in-law, Prabowo, rescued the hostages with numerous deaths.[17] Local and international protest followed the impact of economic development and transmigration by other Indonesians into the region.[18]

    Since the 1960s, consistent reports have filtered out of the territory of government suppression and terrorism, including murder, political assassination, imprisonment, torture, and aerial bombardments. The Indonesian government disbanded the New Guinea Council and forbade the use of the West Papua flag or the singing of the national anthem.

    There has been resistance to Indonesian integration and occupation, both through civil disobedience (such as Morning Star flag raising ceremonies) and via the formation of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, or Free Papua Movement) in 1965. The movement’s military arm is the TPN, or Liberation Army of Free Papua.

    Estimates vary on the death toll, with wild variation in the number claimed dead. A Sydney University academic has estimated more than 100,000 Papuans, one sixteenth of the population, have died as a result of government-sponsored violence against West Papuans,[19] while others had previously specified much higher death tolls.[20]

    In the 1970s and 1980s, the Indonesian state accelerated its transmigration program, under which tens of thousands of Javanese and Sumatran migrants were resettled to Papua. Prior to Indonesian rule, the non-indigenous Asian population was estimated at 16,600; while the Papuan population were a mix of Roman Catholics, Protestants and animists following tribal religions.[21]

    The transmigration program officially ended in the late 1990s. A separatist congress in 2000 again calling for independence resulted in a military crackdown on independence supporters. During the Abdurrahman Wahid administration in 2000, Papua gained a “Special Autonomy” status, an attempted political compromise between separatists and the central government that has weak support within the Jakarta government.

    Despite lack of political will of politicians in Jakarta to proceed with real implementation of the Special Autonomy, which is stipulated by law, the region was divided into two provinces: the province of Papua and the province of West Papua, based on a Presidential Instruction in January 2001, soon after President Wahid was impeached by the Parliament and replaced by Vice President Megawati Sukarnoputri.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irian

    West Papua (region) (Redirected from Irian)

    9 May 2012 at 19:14

    Highest point    Puncak Jaya
    location         Sudirman Range
    elevation       4,884 m (16,024 ft)
    coordinates   4°5′S 137°11′E
    Area     420,540 km2 (162,371 sq mi)
    Population        3,661,000 (2005)
    Density 9 / km2 (23 / sq mi)
    Timezone          EIT (UTC+9)

    West Papua (also known as Western New Guinea) informally refers to the Indonesian western half of the island of New Guinea and other smaller islands to its west. The region is officially administered as two provinces: Papua and West Papua. The eastern half of New Guinea is Papua New Guinea.

    The population of approximately 3 million comprises ethnic Papuans, Melanesians, and Austronesians. The region is predominantly dense forest where numerous traditional tribes live such as the Dani of the Baliem Valley, although the majority of the population live in or near coastal areas.

    The largest city in the region is Jayapura. The official and most commonly spoken language is Indonesian. Estimates of the number of tribal languages in the region range from 200 to over 700, with the most widely spoken including Dani, Yali, Ekari and Biak. The predominant religion is Christianity (often combined with traditional beliefs) followed by Islam. The main industries include agriculture, fishing, oil production, and mining.

    Human habitation is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago.[1] The Netherlands made claim to the region and commenced missionary work in nineteenth century. The region was incorporated into the Indonesian republic in the 1960s, and has faced a violent separatist movement since then.

    Following the 1998 commencement of reforms across Indonesia, Papua and other Indonesian provinces received greater regional autonomy. In 2001, “Special Autonomy” status was granted to Papua province, although to date, implementation has been partial.[2] Since 2003, the region has been divided into the two provinces of Papua and West Papua.

    Name

    Speakers align themselves with a political orientation when choosing a name for the western half of the island of New Guinea.[3] “West Papua”, which is not the official name for the western half of the island, is preferred by ethnic Papuans.[4][5]

    The region has had the official names of Netherlands New Guinea (1895–1962), West New Guinea (1962–63), West Irian (1963–73), Irian Jaya (1973–2001), and Papua (2002–2003).

    When the region was administratively one in Indonesia, Indonesian officials criticised activists’ use of the term “West Papua”, because they thought that the term implied that the province was not a part of Indonesia. Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid considered his short-lived use of the name “Papua” in 2002 as a concession to the West Papuans.[6]

    Since 2003, western New Guinea has had two provinces: the province of West Papua on the west, and the province of Papua on the east. Officials and administrators refer to the province when they say “West Papua”; independence activists mean the whole of western New Guinea.[7]

    Geography

    The region is 1,200 km from east to west and 736 km north to south. It has an area of 420,540 km2 (162,371 sq mi), approximately 22% of Indonesia’s land area. The border with Papua New Guinea mostly follows the 141st meridian east, with one section defined by the Fly River. [8]

    The island of New Guinea was once part of the Australian landmass and lie on the Sahul. The collision between the Indo-Australian Plate and Pacific plate resulting in the Maoke Mountains run through the centre of the region and are 600 km (373 mi) long and 100 km (62 mi) across.[citation needed]

    The range includes about ten peaks over 4,000 metres (13,120 feet), including[9] Puncak Jaya (4,884 m), Puncak Mandala (4,760 m) and Puncak Trikora (4,750 m).[10] The range ensures a steady supply of rain from the tropical atmosphere. The tree line is around 4,000 m (13,100 ft)[citation needed] and the tallest peaks feature small glaciers and are snowbound year round.

    Both north and west of the central ranges the land remains mountainous — mostly 1,000 to 2,000 m (3,300–6,660 ft) high with a warm humid climate year round. The highland areas feature alpine grasslands, jagged bare peaks, montane forests, rainforests, fast flowing rivers, and gorges.

    Swamps and low-lying alluvial plains of fertile soil dominate the southeastern section around the town of Merauke. Swamps also extend 300 km around the Asmat[disambiguation needed] region.

    The rugged and hilly topography of West Papua.

    The province has 40 major rivers, 12 lakes, and 40 islands. The Mamberamo river is the province’s largest river which winds through the northern part of the province. The result is a large area of lakes and rivers known as the Lakes Plains region.

    The vast southern lowlands, which consist of a mosaic of habitats including mangrove, tidal and freshwater swamp forest and lowland rainforest, are home to a dense population of fishermen and gatherers such as the Asmat people. The Baliem Valley, home of the Dani people, is a tableland 1,600 m (5,250 ft) above sea level in the midst of the central mountain range.

    The dry season across the region is generally between May and October; although drier in these months, rain persists throughout the year. Strong winds and rain are experienced along the north coast in November through to March. However, the south coast experiences and increase in wind and rain between April and October, which is the dry season in the Merauke area, the only part of West Papua to experience distinct seasons. Coastal areas are generally hot and humid, whereas the highland areas tend to be cooler.

    Ecology

    Lying in the Asia-Australian transition zone near Wallacea, the regions flora and fauna include Asiatic, Australian, and endemic species. Marsupial species dominate the region; there are an estimated 70 marsupial species (including possums, wallabies, tree-kangaroos, cuscus), and 180 other mammal species (including the endangered long-beaked echidna).

    The region is the only part of Indonesia to have kangaroos, marsupial mice, bandicoots, and ring-tailed possums. The approximately 700 bird species include cassowaries (along the southern coastal areas), bowerbirds, kingfishers, crowned pigeons, parrots, cockatoos) of which 450 are endemic.

    Birds of paradise can be found in Kepala Burung and Yapen. The region is also home to around 800 species of spiders, 200 frogs, 30,000 beetles, 70 bat species, the world’s longest lizards (Papua monitor) and some of the world’s largest butterflies.[citation needed] The extensive waterways and wetlands of Papua are also home to salt and freshwater crocodiles, tree monitors, flying foxes, ospreys, and other animals; while the equatorial glacier fields remain largely unexplored.[citation needed]

    The region is 75% forest and it has a high degree of biodiversity. The island has an estimated 16,000 species of plant, 124 genera of which are endemic.[citation needed] The mountainous areas and the north are covered with dense rainforest. Highland vegetation also includes alpine grasslands, heath, pine forests, bush and scrub. The vegetation of the south coast includes mangroves and sago palms, and in the drier southeastern section, eucalypts, paperbarks, and acacias.

    In February 2005, a team of scientists exploring the Foja Mountains discovered numerous new species of birds, butterflies, amphibians, and plants, including a species of rhododendron which may have the largest bloom of the genus.[11] Environmental issues include deforestation, the spread of the introduced Crab-eating Macaque which now threatens the existence of many native monkey species, and discarded copper and gold tailings from the Grasberg mine.[12]

    Demographics

    The population of the region was estimated to be 3,593,803 in 2010.[13] The interior is predominantly populated by ethnic Papuans and coastal towns are inhabited by descendants of intermarriages between Papuans, Melanesians, and other Indonesian ethnic groups. Migrants from the rest of Indonesia also tend to inhabit the coastal regions.

    The two largest cities in the territory are Sorong in the northwest of the Bird’s Head Peninsula and Jayapura in the northeast. Both cities have a population of approximately 200,000.[citation needed]

    The region is home to around 312 different tribes, including some uncontacted peoples.[14] The Dani, from the Baliem Valley, are one of the most populous tribes of the region. The Manikom and Hatam inhabit the Anggi Lakes area, and the Kanum and Marind are from near Merauke.

    The semi-nomadic Asmat inhabit the mangrove and tidal river areas near Agats and are renowned for their woodcarving. Other tribes include the Amungme, Bauzi, Biak (Byak), Korowai, Lani, Mee, Mek, Sawi, and Yali. Estimates of the number of distinct languages spoken in the region range from 200 to 700. A number of these languages are permanently disappearing.[citation needed]

    As in Papua New Guinea and some surrounding east Indonesian provinces, a large majority of the population is Christian. In the 2000 census 54% identified themselves as Protestant, 24% as Catholic, 21% as Muslim, and less than 1% as either Hindu or Buddhist.[citation needed] There is also substantial practice of animism among the major religions, but this is not recorded by the census.[citation needed]

    Haplogroups

    There are 6 main Y-chromosome haplogroups in West Papua; Y-chromosome haplogroup M is the most common, with Y-chromosome haplogroup O2a as a small minority in second place and Y-chromosome haplogroup S back in third position across the mountain highlands; while D, C2 and C4 are of negligible numbers.

    Haplogroup M is the most frequently occurring Y-chromosome haplogroup in West Papua.[15] In a 2005 study of Papua New Guinea’s ASPM gene variants, Mekel-Bobrov et al. found that the Papuan people have among the highest rate of the newly-evolved ASPM haplogroup D, at 59.4% occurrence of the approximately 6,000-year-old allele.[16]

    Haplogroup O2a (M95) is typical of Austro-Asiatic peoples, Tai–Kadai peoples, Malays, Indonesians, and Malagasy, with a moderate distribution throughout South, Southeast, East, and Central Asia.

    Haplogroup S occurs in eastern Indonesia (10–20%) and Island Melanesia (~10%), but reaches greatest frequency in the highlands of Papua New Guinea (52%).[17]

    Extinction

    In 2012, the Tampoto tribe in Skow Mabo village, Jayapura, was on the brink of extinction, with only a single person (a man in his twenties) still living; the Dasem tribe in Waena area, Jayapura, also is near extinction, with only one family consisting of several people still alive. A decade ago, the Sebo tribe in the Kayu Pulau region, Jayapura Bay, died out.

    Hundreds of Papuan tribes have their own individual languages; they unable to compete in the acculturation process with other groups, and some tribes have resisted acculturation. By contrast, the Dayak tribes in Kalimantan are able to interact with people from outside and adapt without losing their separate cultural identities.[18]

    Culture

    West Papuans have significant cultural affinities with the inhabitants of Papua New Guinea.[citation needed] As in Papua New Guinea the peoples of the highlands have distinct traditions and languages from peoples of the coast, though Papuan scholars and activists have recently detailed cultural links between coast and highlands as evidenced by close similarity of family names.

    In some parts of the highlands, the koteka (penis gourd) is worn by males in ceremonial contexts. The use of the koteka as everyday dress by Dani males in Western New Guinea is still common.

    History

    Papuan habitation of the region is estimated to have begun between 42,000 and 48,000 years ago.[1] Research indicates that the highlands were an early and independent center of agriculture, and show that agriculture developed gradually over several thousands of years and that banana has been cultivated in this region since at least 7,000 years ago.[19]

    Austronesian peoples migrating through Maritime Southeast Asia settled in the area at least 3,000 years ago, and populated especially in Cenderawasih Bay. Diverse cultures and languages have developed in situ; there are over 300 languages and two hundred additional dialects in the region (See Papuan languages, Austronesian languages, Central–Eastern Malayo-Polynesian languages).

    European discovery

    In 1526–27, the Portuguese explorer Jorge de Menezes accidentally came upon the principal island and is credited with naming it Papua, from a Malay word Papuwah, for the frizzled quality of Melanesian hair.[20] He landed also on Waigeo Island and named the region Ilhas dos Papuas (Islands of Papuans).

    In 1545 the Spaniard Yñigo Ortiz de Retez sailed along the north coast as far as the Mamberamo River near which he landed, naming the island Nueva Guinea. In 1606 Spanish navigator Luís Vaz de Torres[21] sailed along the southwestern part of the island in present-day Papua, and also claimed the territory for the King of Spain.

    Near the end of the sixteenth century, Sultanate of Ternate under Sultan Baabullah (1570–1583), had influence over parts of Papua.[22]

    Netherlands New Guinea
    Dutch expeditions in Netherlands New Guinea 1907–1915. In 1660, the Dutch recognised the Sultan of Tidore’s sovereignty over New Guinea. New Guinea thus became notionally Dutch as the Dutch held power over Tidore. In 1793, Britain established a settlement near Manokwari, however, it failed. By 1824 Britain and the Netherlands agreed that the western half of the island would become part of the Dutch East Indies.

    In 1828 the Dutch established a settlement in Lobo (near Kaimana) which also failed. Great Britain and Germany had recognised the Dutch claims on western New Guinea in treaties of 1885 and 1895. Dutch activity in the region remained minimal in the first half of the twentieth century.

    Dutch, US, and Japanese mining companies explored the area’s rich oil reserves in the 1930s. In 1942, the northern coast of West New Guinea and the nearby islands were occupied by Japan.[23] In 1944, Allied forces gained control of the region through four-phase campaign from neighbouring Papua New Guinea.

    The United States constructed a headquarters for MacArthur at Hollandia (Jayapura) intended as a staging point for operations taking of the Philippines. Papuan men and resources were used to support the Allied war effort in the Pacific. After the war’s end the Dutch regained possession of the region.

    Since the early twentieth century, Indonesian nationalists had sought an independent Indonesia based on all Dutch colonial possessions in the Indies, including western New Guinea. In December 1949, the Netherlands recognised Indonesian sovereignty over the Dutch East Indies with the exception of Dutch New Guinea, the issue of which was to be discussed within a year.

    In attempt to prevent Indonesia taking control of the region and to prepare the region for self-rule, the Dutch significantly raised development spending off its low base,[24] began investing in Papuan education, and encouraged Papuan nationalism.

    A small western elite developed with a growing political awareness attuned to the idea of independence, with close links to neighbouring eastern New Guinea which was administered by Australia.[25] A national parliament was elected in 1961, however, support for the nascent nationalist movement across the region was weak and fragmented.

    Incorporation into Indonesia

    Sukarno made take over of western New Guinea a focus of his continuing struggle against Dutch imperialism and part of a broader Third World conflict with the West.[26] Indonesia launched seaborne and paratroop incursions into the territory but with little success.[27]

    The Dutch knew that a military campaign to retain the region would require protracted jungle warfare, and were unwilling to see a repeat of their eventually futile efforts in the armed struggle for Indonesian independence in the 1940s, and they agreed to American mediation.

    The negotiations resulted in the UN-ratified New York Agreement of September 1962,[28] that required authority to be transferred to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) and then to Indonesia from 1 May 1963, until such time as Indonesia allowed the Papuans to determine whether they wanted independence or be part of Indonesia.

    Accordingly in 1969, the United Nations supervised the “Act of Free Choice” in which the Indonesian government used the procedure of musyawarah, a consensus of ‘elders’. Without a significant Papuan nationalist movement, the 1,054 elders (officials appointed by the Indonesian government) represented agreed to be a part of Indonesia.[29] Soon after, the region became the 26th province of Indonesia with full United Nations and international recognition.

    The separatist Free Papua Movement (OPM) has engaged in a small-scale conflict with the Indonesian military since the 1960s. Rebellions occurred in remote mountainous areas in 1969, 1977, and the mid-1980s, occasionally spilling over into Papua New Guinea. In 1996, 5,000 Papuans rioted and burned the Abepura market in Jayapura resulting in several deaths.

    That year, Free Papua Movement separatists kidnapped European and Indonesian researchers in a remote part of the Baliem Valley. The Europeans were released four months later, however, two Indonesian hostages were killed.[30]

    A two-year study by a team of Australian and local researchers concluded in 2005 that Indonesia’s security forces had been the main source of instability in the territory and estimated that more than 100,000 Papuans had died through Indonesian military campaigns since incorporation into Indonesia.[31]

    In the Post-Suharto era since 1998, the national government began a process of decentralisation to the provinces, including, in December 2001, a “Special Autonomy” status for Papua province and a reinvestment into the region of 80% of the taxation receipts generated from the region. In 2003, the province of “West Papua” was created in the Bird’s Head Peninsula and surrounding islands to its west.

    Administration
    The West Papua region is administered as two Indonesian provinces:

    The province of Papua contains 19 regencies, 1 city, 117 subdistricts, 66 kelurahan, and 830 villages. The regencies are: Asmat; Biak-Numfor; Boven Digoel; Jayapura; Jayawijaya; Keerom; Mappi; Merauke; Mimika; Nabire; Paniai; Pegunungan Bintang; Puncak Jaya; Sarmi; Supiori; Tolikara; Waropen; Yahukimo and Yapen Waropen. The city of Jayapura, which also has the status of a regency, is the largest city in the West Papua region.

    The province of West Papua contains eight regencies and one city. The regencies in West Papua are Fak-Fak Regency, Kaimana Regency, Manokwari Regency, Raja Ampat Regency, Sorong Regency, South Sorong Regency, Tambrauw Regency, Teluk Bintuni Regency, and Teluk Wondama Regency. The current capital city is Manokwari.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Papua_Province

    West Papua (province)

    22 May 2012 at 16:53

    West Papua, —  Province  —
    Motto: Cintaku Negeriku (Indonesian), (My love, my country)
    Coordinates (Manokwari): 0°52′S 134°5′ECoordinates: 0°52′S 134°5′E
    Country            Indonesia
    Capital Manokwari
    Time zone         EIT (UTC+09)
    Government
    Governor      Abraham Octavianus Atururi
    Website papuabaratprov.go.id

    Area
    Total 97,024.27 km2 (37,461.28 sq mi)

    Population (2010)
    Total 760,422
    Density         7.8/km2 (20/sq mi)

    Demographics
    Ethnic groups            Melanesian, Papuan
    Religion         Protestantism (53.77%), Islam (38.4%), Roman Catholicism (7.03%), Hinduism (0.11%), Buddhism (0.08%)
    Languages     Indonesian (official)

    West Papua (Indonesian: Papua Barat) is a province of Indonesia covering the western peninsula of the island of New Guinea. It is the least-populous province of Indonesia and one of two situated in Indonesian New Guinea, with the province of Papua also lying to the east. Prior to 2007, the province was known as West Irian Jaya (Indonesian: Irian Jaya Barat). The region covers the Bird’s Head (Doberai) and Bomberai peninsulas and the surrounding islands of Raja Ampat. Its first census, in 2010, recorded some 761,000 people.[1]

    Regencies

    The capital of West Papua province is Manokwari. It is administratively divided into ten regencies (kabupaten) and one city (kota):

    Regency – Principal Town – Area – Population
    Fak-Fak Regency – (Fak-Fak) – 38,474 km ² – 50,584
    Kaimana Regency – (Kaimana) – 18,500 km ² – 26,703
    Manokwari Regency – (Capital of West Papua: Manokwari) -34,970 km ² – 209,308
    Maybrat Regency – (Kumurkek)
    Raja Ampat Regency – (Waisai) – 46,296 km ² – 27,071
    Sorong Regency – (Aimas) – 7,415 km ² – 90,933
    South Sorong Regency – (Teminabuan) – 9,408 km ² – 48,750
    Tambrauw Regency – (Fef) – 5,179 – 29,119[2]
    Teluk Bintuni Regency – (Bintuni) – 18,637 km ² – 52,403
    Teluk Wondama Regency – (Rasiei) – 14,953 km ² – 22,731
    Sorong City – (Sorong) – 1,105 km ² – 184,239

    Administrative history

    Even after Indonesia’s independence in 1949, Irian Jaya was retained by the Dutch for various reasons. However, Indonesia claimed all of the territory of the former Dutch East Indies, including the Dutch New Guinea holdings, so it invaded Irian Jaya in 1961. In 1969, the United Nations supervised the Act of Free Choice in which Papuan leaders decided in favour of joining Indonesia. This was however rejected by the Free Papua Movement (OPM). The OPM group then conducted guerrilla warfare against Indonesia.[3]

    West Papua was created from the western portion of Papua province in February 2003, initially under the name of Irian Jaya Barat; it was renamed Papua Barat (West Papua) on 7 February 2007.

    In November 2004, an Indonesian court agreed that the split violated Papua’s autonomy laws. However, the court ruled that because the new province had already been created, it should remain separate from Papua. The ruling also prohibited the creation of another proposed province, Central Irian Jaya, as that division had not yet been formalised.

    The split is inline with the general trend of provincial splits that is occurring in all parts of Indonesia in the post-Suharto era. The new province has so far been widely supported by the province’s inhabitants, as the new entity created more jobs and more government subsidies flowing into the province.[4]

    The province changed its name to West Papua on 7 February 2007. The new name applies from that date, but a plenary session of the provincial legislative council is required to legalise the change of name, and the government needs to then issue a regulation.[5]

    Earthquake

    At 4:43 am local time on 3 January 2009, an earthquake 7.6 on the Richter magnitude scale struck near the northern coast of the Doberai Peninsula. A tsunami warning was initially issued but lifted within an hour of the quake.[6][7] The earthquake occurred about 150 km west-northwest of Manokwari and about 170 km east-northeast of Sorong.[7]


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_guinea

    New Guinea

    12 May 2012 at 02:44

    Geography
    Location           Melanesia
    Coordinates      5°30′S 141°00′E
    Archipelago      Malay archipelago
    Area     786,000 km2 (303,500 sq mi)
    Area rank         2nd
    Highest elevation           4,884 m (16,024 ft)
    Highest point    Puncak Jaya
    Country Indonesia
    Provinces         Papua and West Papua
    Demographics
    Population        ~ 7.5 million (as of 2005)
    Density 8 /km2 (21 /sq mi)
    Ethnic groups    Papuan and Austronesian

    New Guinea (also known by other names) is the world’s second largest island, after Greenland, covering a land area of 786,000 km2. Located in the southwest Pacific Ocean, it lies geographically to the east of the Malay Archipelago, with which it is sometimes included as part of a greater Indo-Australian Archipelago.[1]

    Overview

    Geologically, New Guinea is a part of the same tectonic plate as Australia. When world sea levels were low, the two shared shorelines (which now lie 100 to 140 metres below sea level), [2] combining with lands now inundated into the tectonic continent of Sahul,[3][4] also known as Greater Australia.[5] The two landmasses became separated when the area now known as the Torres Strait flooded after the end of the last glacial period.

    Anthropologically it is considered part of Melanesia.[citation needed] Politically, the western half of the island comprises two Indonesian provinces: Papua and West Papua. The eastern half forms the mainland of the country of Papua New Guinea. New Guinea has a population of about 7.5 million who inhabit a land with a hot humid rainy climate.

    The constantly dripping rain forests cover a high mountain-dominated interior with features rapidly descending to the sea coast. It has a very low population density of only 8 inh/km2. New Guinea is differentiated from its drier, flatter,[6] and less fertile[7][8] southern counterpart, Australia, by its much higher rainfall and its active volcanic geology, with its highest point, Puncak Jaya, reaching an elevation of 4,884 m (16,023 ft).

    Yet the two land masses share a similar animal fauna, with marsupials, including wallabies and possums, and the egg-laying monotreme, the spiny anteater, or echidna. Other than bats and some two dozen indigenous rodent genera,[9] there are no pre-human indigenous placental mammals. Pigs, several additional species of rats, and the ancestor of the New Guinea Singing Dog were introduced with human colonization.

    The human presence on the island dates back at least 40,000 years to the oldest human migrations out of Africa. Research indicates that the highlands were an early and independent center of agriculture, with evidence of irrigation going back at least 10,000 years.[10]

    Given the time depth of its inhabitation and its highly fractured landscape, an unusually high number of languages are spoken on the island, with some 1,000 languages (a figure higher than that of most continents) having been catalogued out of an estimated world-wide pre-Columbian total of 6,000 human dialects.

    Most are classified as Papuan languages, a generally accepted geographical term which a minority of authors hold to be a genetic one. A number of Austronesian languages are spoken on the coast and on offshore islands.

    In the 16th century Spanish explorers discovered the island and called it Nueva Guinea. In recent history western New Guinea was included in the Dutch East Indies colony. The Germans annexed the northern coast of the eastern half of the island as German New Guinea in their pre–World War I effort to establish themselves as a colonial power, whilst the south eastern portion was reluctantly claimed by Britain.

    Following the Treaty of Versailles, the German portion was awarded to Australia (which was already governing the British claim, named the Territory of Papua) as a League of Nations mandate. The eastern half of the island was granted independence from Australia as Papua New Guinea in 1975. The western half gained independence from the Dutch in 1961, but became part of Indonesia soon afterwards in controversial circumstances.[11]

    Names

    The island has been known by various names. The name Papua was used to refer to parts of the island before contact with the West.[12] Its etymology is unclear;[12] one theory is that it is from Tidore, the language used by the Sultanate of Tidore that controlled parts of the island’s coastal region.[13] The name came from papo (to unite) and ua (negation), which mean not united or, territory that geographically far away and thus not united.[13]

    Ploeg reports that the word papua is often said to derive from the Malay word papua or pua-pua, meaning ‘frizzly-haired’, referring to the highly curly hair of the inhabitants of these areas.[14] Another possibility, (put forward by Sollewijn Gelpke in 1993) is that it comes from the Biak phrase sup i papwa which means ‘the land below [the sunset]‘ and refers to the islands west of the Bird’s Head, as far as Halmahera.

    Whatever the origin of the name Papua, it came to be associated with this area, and more especially with Halmahera, which was known to the Portuguese by this name during the era of their colonisation in this part of the world. When the Spanish and Portuguese explorers arrived in the island via Spice Islands, they also referred to the island as Papua.[13]

    However the name New Guinea would later be used by Westerners starting with Spanish explorer Yñigo Ortiz de Retez in 1545, referring to the similarities of the indigenous people’s appearance with the natives of Guinea region of Africa.[13] The Dutch who arrived later under Lemaire and Schouten called it Schouten island, but later this name is used only to refer to islands to the north of the coast of Papua proper, the Schouten Islands or Biak Island.

    When the Dutch colonized it as part of Netherlands East Indies, they called it Nieuw Guinea.[13] The name Irian was used in the Indonesian language to refer the island and Indonesian province, as “Irian Jaya province”. The name was promoted in 1945 by Marcus Kaisiepo,[12] brother of the future governor Frans Kaisiepo.

    It is taken from the Biak language of Biak Island, and means to rise, or rising spirit. This name of Irian is the name used in the Biak language and other languages such as Serui, Merauke and Waropen languages.[13] The name was used until 2001 when the name Papua was used again for the island and the province. The name Irian, which was originally favored by natives, is now considered to be a name imposed by authority of Jakarta.[12]

    Political divisions

    The island of New Guinea is divided politically into roughly equal halves across a north-south line:

    The western portion of the island located west of 141°E longitude, (except for a small section of territory to the east of the Fly River which belongs to Papua New Guinea) was formerly a Dutch colony, the Dutch East Indies, and after decolonization is now two Indonesian provinces:

    1. West Papua with Manokwari as its capital.
    2. Papua with the city of Jayapura as its capital.

    The eastern part forms the mainland of Papua New Guinea, which has been an independent country since 1975. It was formerly the Territory of Papua and New Guinea governed by Australia, consisting of the Trust Territory of New Guinea (northeastern quarter, formerly German New Guinea), and the Territory of Papua (southeastern quarter). The country consists of four regions:

    1. Papua, consisting of Western, Gulf, Central, Oro (Northern) and Milne Bay provinces.
    2. Highlands, consisting of Southern Highlands, Enga Province, Western Highlands, Simbu and Eastern Highlands provinces.
    3. Momase, consisting of Morobe, Madang, East Sepik and Sandaun (West Sepik) provinces.
    4. Islands, consisting of Manus, West New Britain, East New Britain and New Ireland provinces, and the Bougainville Autonomous Province.

    People

    The current population of the island of New Guinea is about 7.5 million. Many believe human habitation on the island dates to as early as 40,000 B.C.,[15] and first settlement possibly dated back to 60,000 years ago has been proposed. The island is presently populated by very nearly a thousand different tribal groups and a near-equivalent number of separate languages, which makes New Guinea the most linguistically diverse area in the world.

    Ethnologue’s 14th edition lists 826 languages of Papua New Guinea and 257 languages of Irian Jaya, total 1073 languages, with 12 languages overlapping. They fall into one of two groups, the Papuan languages and the Austronesian languages.

    The separation was not merely linguistic; warfare among societies was a factor in the evolution of the men’s house: separate housing of groups of adult men, from the single-family houses of the women and children, for mutual protection against the other groups. Pig-based trade between the groups and pig-based feasts are a common theme with the other peoples of southeast Asia and Oceania.

    Most societies practice agriculture, supplemented by hunting and gathering. The great variety of the island’s indigenous populations are frequently assigned to one of two main ethnological divisions, based on archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence: the Papuan and Austronesian groups.[16]

    Current evidence indicates that the Papuans (who constitute the majority of the island’s peoples) are descended from the earliest human inhabitants of New Guinea. These original inhabitants first arrived in New Guinea at a time (either side of the Last Glacial Maximum, approx 21,000 years ago) when the island was connected to the Australian continent via a land bridge, forming the landmass known as Sahul.

    These peoples had made the (shortened) sea-crossing from the islands of Wallacea and Sundaland (the present Malay Archipelago) by at least 40,000 years ago, subsequent to the dispersal of peoples from Africa (circa) 50,000 – 70,000 years ago.[citation needed] The ancestral Austronesian peoples are believed to have arrived considerably later, approximately 3,500 years ago, as part of a gradual seafaring migration from Southeast Asia, possibly originating in Taiwan.

    Austronesian-speaking peoples colonized many of the offshore islands to the north and east of New Guinea, such as New Ireland and New Britain, with settlements also on the coastal fringes of the main island in places. Human habitation of New Guinea over tens of thousands of years has led to a great deal of diversity, which was further increased by the later arrival of the Austronesians and the more recent history of European and Asian settlement through events like transmigration.

    Large swathes of New Guinea are yet to be explored by scientists and anthropologists. The Indonesian province of West Papua is home to an estimated 44 uncontacted tribal groups.[17]

    Biodiversity and ecology

    With some 786,000 km² of tropical land — less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the Earth’s surface — New Guinea has an immense biodiversity, containing between 5 and 10 percent of the total species on the planet. This percentage is about the same amount as that found in the United States or Australia.

    A high percentage of New Guinea’s species are endemic, and thousands are still unknown to science: probably well over 200,000 species of insect, between 11,000 to 20,000 plant species, and over 650 resident bird species. Most of these species are shared, at least in their origin, with the continent of Australia, which was until fairly recent geological times, part of the same landmass (see Australia-New Guinea for an overview).

    The island is so large that it is considered ‘nearly a continent’ in terms of its biological distinctiveness. In the period from 1998 to 2008, conservationists have found 1,060 new species in New Guinea, they were 218 kinds of plants, 43 reptiles, 12 mammals, 580 invertebrates, 134 amphibians, 2 birds and 71 fish.[18]

    The floristic region of Malesia

    Biogeographically, New Guinea is part of Australasia rather than the Indomalayan realm, although New Guinea’s flora has many more affinities with Asia than its fauna, which is overwhelmingly Australian. Botanically, New Guinea considered part of Malesia, a floristic region that extends from the Malay Peninsula across Indonesia to New Guinea and the East Melanesian Islands.

    The flora of New Guinea is a mixture of many tropical rainforest species with origins in Asia, together with typically Australasian flora. Typical southern hemisphere flora include the conifers Podocarpus and the rainforest emergents Araucaria and Agathis, as well as tree ferns and several species of Eucalyptus.

    New Guinea has 284 species and six orders of mammals: monotremes, three orders of marsupials, rodents and bats; 195 of the mammal species (69%) are endemic. New Guinea has 578 species of breeding birds, of which 324 species are endemic. The island’s frogs are one of the most poorly known vertebrate groups, currently totalling 282 species, but this number is expected to double or even triple when all species have been documented.

    New Guinea has a rich diversity of coral life and 1,200 species of fish have been found. Also about 600 species of reef-building coral — the latter equal to 75 percent of the world’s known total. The entire coral area covers 18 million hectares off a peninsula in northwest New Guinea.

    Ecoregions

    Terrestrial

    According to the WWF, New Guinea can be divided into twelve terrestrial ecoregions:[19]

    1. Central Range montane rain forests
    2. Central Range sub-alpine grasslands
    3. Huon Peninsula montane rain forests
    4. New Guinea mangroves
    5. Northern New Guinea lowland rain and freshwater swamp forests
    6. Northern New Guinea montane rain forests
    7. Southeastern Papuan rain forests
    8. Southern New Guinea freshwater swamp forests
    9. Southern New Guinea lowland rain forests
    10. Trans Fly savanna and grasslands
    11. Vogelkop montane rain forests
    12. Vogelkop-Aru lowland rain forests

    Freshwater

    The WWF and Nature Conservancy divide New Guinea into five freshwater ecoregions:[20]

    1. Vogelkop–Bomberai
    2. New Guinea North Coast
    3. New Guinea Central Mountains
    4. Southwest New Guinea–Trans-Fly Lowland
    5. Papuan Peninsula

    Marine

    The WWF and Nature Conservancy identify several marine ecoregions in the seas bordering New Guinea:[21]

    1. Papua
    2. Bismarck Sea
    3. Solomon Sea
    4. Southeast Papua New Guinea
    5. Gulf of Papua
    6. Arafura Sea

    History

    Early history

    The continent of Sahul before the rising ocean sundered Australia and New Guinea after the last ice age. The first inhabitants of New Guinea arrived at least around 40,000 years ago, having travelled through the south-east Asian peninsula. These first inhabitants, from whom the Papuan people are probably descended, adapted to the range of ecologies and in time developed one of the earliest known agricultures.

    Remains of this agricultural system, in the form of ancient irrigation systems in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, are being studied by archaeologists. This work is still in its early stages so there is still uncertainty as to precisely what crop was being grown, or when/where agriculture arose. Sugar cane was cultivated for the first time in New Guinea around 6000 B.C.[22]

    The gardens of the New Guinea Highlands are ancient, intensive permacultures, adapted to high population densities, very high rainfalls (as high as 10,000 mm/yr (400 in/yr)), earthquakes, hilly land, and occasional frost. Complex mulches, crop rotations and tillages are used in rotation on terraces with complex irrigation systems.

    Western agronomists still do not understand all practices, and it has been noted that native gardeners are as or more successful than most scientific farmers in raising certain crops.[23] There is evidence that New Guinea gardeners invented crop rotation well before western Europeans.[24]

    A unique feature of New Guinea permaculture is the silviculture of Casuarina oligodon, a tall, sturdy native ironwood tree, suited to use for timber and fuel, with root nodules that fix nitrogen. Pollen studies show that it was adopted during an ancient period of extreme deforestation.

    In more recent millennia another wave of people arrived on the shores of New Guinea. These were the Austronesian people, who had spread down from Taiwan, through the South-east Asian archipelago, colonising many of the islands on the way. The Austronesian people had technology and skills extremely well adapted to ocean voyaging and Austronesian language speaking people are present along much of the coastal areas and islands of New Guinea.

    This Austronesian migrants are considered ancestors of most people in insular Southeast Asia form Sumatra, Java to Borneo and Sulawesi, and coastal new Guinea.[25]

    Pre-colonial history

    Group of natives at Mairy Pass. Mainland of British New Guinea in 1885. Papuans on the Lorentz River, photographed during the third South New Guinea expedition in 1912-13. The western part of the island was in contact with kingdoms in other parts of modern-day Indonesia. Negarakertagama mentioned region of Wanin in eastern Nusantara as part of Majapahit’s tributary.

    This has been identified with the Onin Peninsula, part of the Bomberai Peninsula near the city of Fakfak.[26][27] The sultans of Tidore, in Maluku Islands, claimed sovereignty over various coastal part of the island.[28] During Tidore’s rule, the main exports of the island during this period were resins, spices, slaves and the highly priced feathers of the Bird-of-Paradise.[28]

    Sultan Nuku, one of the most famous Tidore sultans who rebelled against Dutch colonization, called himself “Sultan of Tidore and Papua”,[29] during his revolt in 1780s. He commanded loyalty from both Moluccan and Papuan chiefs, especially those of Raja Ampat Islands. Following Tidore’s defeat, much of the territory it claimed in western part of New Guinea come under Dutch rule as part of Dutch East Indies.[29]

    European contact

    The first European contact with New Guinea was by Portuguese and Spanish sailors in the 16th century. In 1526-27 the Portuguese explorer Jorge de Meneses saw the western tip of New Guinea and named it ilhas dos Papuas. In 1545 the Spaniard Yñigo Ortiz de Retez sailed along the north coast of New Guinea as far as the Mamberamo River near which he landed, naming the island ‘Nueva Guinea’.

    The first map showing the whole island (as an island) was published in 1600 and shows it as ‘Nova Guinea’. In 1606 Spanish navigator Luís Vaz de Torres explored the southern coast of New Guinea from Milne Bay to the Gulf of Papua including Orangerie Bay which he named Bahía de San Lorenzo.

    His expedition also discovered Basilaki Island naming it Tierra de San Buenaventura, which he claimed for Spain in July 1606.[30] On October 18 his expedition reached the western part of the island in present-day Indonesia, and also claimed the territory for the King of Spain. New Guinea from 1884-1919. The Netherlands controlled the western half of New Guinea, Germany the north-eastern part, and Britain the south-eastern part.

    A successive European claim occurred in 1828, when the Netherlands formally claimed the western half of the island as Netherlands New Guinea. In 1883, following a short-lived French annexation of New Ireland, the British colony of Queensland annexed south-eastern New Guinea.

    However, the Queensland government’s superiors in the United Kingdom revoked the claim, and (formally) assumed direct responsibility in 1884, when Germany claimed north-eastern New Guinea as the protectorate of German New Guinea (also styled Kaiser-Wilhelmsland). The first Dutch government posts were established in 1898 and in 1902 Manokwari on the north coast, Fak-Fak in the west and Merauke in the south at the border with British New Guinea.

    The Germans, the Dutch and the British tried to suppress warfare and headhunting, which was once common between the villages of the populace.[31] In 1905 the British government renamed their territory as the Territory of Papua, and in 1906 transferred total responsibility for it to Australia.

    During World War I, Australian forces seized German New Guinea, which in 1920 became the Territory of New Guinea, a League of Nations mandated territory of Australia. The Australian territories became collectively known as The Territories of Papua and New Guinea (until February 1942).

    Before about 1930, European maps showed the highlands as uninhabited forests.[citation needed] When first flown over by aircraft, numerous settlements with agricultural terraces and stockades were observed. The most startling discovery took place on 4 August 1938, when Richard Archbold discovered the Grand Valley of the Baliem River which had 50,000 yet-undiscovered Stone Age farmers living in orderly villages. The people, known as the Dani, were the last society of its size to make first contact with the rest of the world.[32]

    Since World War II

    Australian soldiers display Japanese flags they captured at Kaiapit, New Guinea in 1943. Netherlands New Guinea and the Australian territories were invaded in 1942 by the Japanese. The Australian territories were put under military administration and were known simply as New Guinea.

    The highlands, northern and eastern parts of the island became key battlefields in the South West Pacific Theatre of World War II. Papuans often gave vital assistance to the Allies, fighting alongside Australian troops, and carrying equipment and injured men across New Guinea.

    Following the return to civil administration, the Australian section was known as the Territory of Papua-New Guinea (1945–49) and then as Papua and New Guinea. Although the rest of the Dutch East Indies achieved independence as Indonesia on 27 December 1949, the Netherlands regained control of western New Guinea.

    During the 1950s the Dutch government began to prepare Netherlands New Guinea for full independence and allowed elections in 1959; the elected New Guinea Council took office on 5 April 1961. The Council decided on the name of West Papua for the territory, along with an emblem, flag, and anthem to complement those of the Netherlands.

    On 1 October 1962, the Dutch handed over the territory to the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority, until 1 May 1963, when Indonesia took control. The territory was renamed West Irian and then Irian Jaya. In 1969 Indonesia, under the 1962 New York Agreement, organised a referendum named the Act of Free Choice, in which Papuan tribal elders reached a consensus to continue union with Indonesia.[citation needed] Map of New Guinea, with place names as used in English in the 1940s

    There has been resistance to Indonesian integration and occupation, both through civil disobedience (such as Morning Star flag raising ceremonies) and via the formation of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, or Free Papua Movement) in 1965. Amnesty International has estimated more than 100,000 Papuans, one-sixth of the population, have died as a result of government-sponsored violence against West Papuans.[33]

    From 1971, the name Papua New Guinea was used for the Australian territory. On 16 September 1975, Australia granted full independence to Papua New Guinea. In 2000, Irian Jaya was formally renamed “The Province of Papua” and a Law on Special Autonomy was passed in 2001.

    The Law established a Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) with representatives of the different indigenous cultures of Papua. The MRP was empowered to protect the rights of Papuans, raise the status of women in Papua, and to ease religious tensions in Papua; block grants were given for the implementation of the Law as much as $266 million in 2004.[34]

    The Indonesian courts’ enforcement of the Law on Special Autonomy blocked further creation of subdivisions of Papua: although President Megawati Sukarnoputri was able to create a separate West Papua province in 2003 as a fait accompli, plans for a third province on western New Guinea were blocked by the courts. (King, 2004, p. 91)

    Critics argue that the Indonesian government has been reluctant to establish or issue various government implementing regulations so that the legal provisions of special autonomy could be put into practice, and as a result special autonomy in Papua has failed.[35]

    Geography

    New Guinea located with respect to Melanesia. Topographical map of New Guinea. New Guinea is an island in the north of the continent of Sahul, also known as Greater Australia. It is isolated by the Arafura Sea to the west and the Torres Strait and Coral Sea to the east. Sometimes considered to be the easternmost island of the Malay archipelago, it lies north of Australia’s Top End, Gulf of Carpentaria and Cape York peninsula, and west of the Bismarck Archipelago and the Solomon Islands Archipelago.

    The shape of New Guinea is often compared to that of a bird of paradise, and this results in the usual names for the two extremes of the island: the Bird’s Head Peninsula in the northwest (Vogelkop in Dutch, Kepala Burung in Indonesian; also known as the Doberai Peninsula), and the Bird’s Tail Peninsula in the southeast (also known as the Papuan Peninsula).

    A spine of east–west mountains, the New Guinea Highlands, dominates the geography of New Guinea, stretching over 1,600 km (1,000 mi) from the ‘head’ to the ‘tail’ of the island. The western half of the island of New Guinea contains the highest mountains in Oceania, rising up to 4,884 m (16,024 ft) high, and ensuring a steady supply of rain from the equatorial atmosphere.

    The tree line is around 4,000 m (13,100 ft) elevation and the tallest peaks contain permanent equatorial glaciers—which have been retreating since at least 1936.[36][37][38] Various other smaller mountain ranges occur both north and west of the central ranges. Except in high elevations, most areas possess a warm humid climate throughout the year, with some seasonal variation associated with the northeast monsoon season.

    The highest peaks on the island of New Guinea are:

    1. Puncak Jaya, sometimes known by its former Dutch name Carstensz Pyramid, is a mist covered limestone mountain peak on the Indonesian side of the border. At 4,884 metres (16,024 ft), Puncak Jaya makes New Guinea the world’s fourth highest landmass.
    2. Puncak Mandala located in Papua, is the second highest peak on the island at 4,760 metres (15,617 ft).
    3. Puncak Trikora also in Papua is 4,750 metres (15,584 ft).
    4. Mount Wilhelm is the highest peak on the PNG side of the border at 4,509 metres (14,793 ft). Its granite peak is the highest point of the Bismarck Range.
    5. Mount Giluwe 4,368 metres (14,331 ft) is the second highest summit in PNG it is also the highest volcanic peak in Oceania.

    Another major habitat feature is the vast southern and northern lowlands. Stretching for hundreds of kilometres, these include lowland rainforests, extensive wetlands, savanna grasslands, and some of the largest expanses of mangrove forest in the world. The southern lowlands are the site of Lorentz National Park, also a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

    The northern lowlands are drained principally by the Mamberamo River and its tributaries on the Indonesian side, and by the Sepik on the PNG side; the more extensive southern lowlands by a larger number of rivers, principally the Digul on the Indonesian side and the Fly on the PNG side.

    These are the island’s major river systems, draining roughly northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast, respectively. Many have broad areas of meander and result in large areas of lakes and freshwater swamps. The largest island offshore, Dolak (Frederik Hendrik, Yos Sudarso), lies near the Digul estuary, separated by a straight so narrow it has been named a “creek”.

    New Guinea contains many of the world’s ecosystem types: glacial, alpine tundra, savanna, montane and lowland rainforest, mangroves, wetlands, lake and river ecosystems, seagrasses, and some of the richest coral reefs on the planet.

    Prior to the 1970s, archaeologists called the single Pleistocene landmass by the name Australasia,[3] although this word is most often used for a wider region that includes lands like New Zealand that are not on the same continental shelf. In the early 1970s they introduced the term Greater Australia for the Pleistocene continent.[3] Then at a 1975 conference and consequent publication,[4] they extended the name Sahul from its previous use for just the Sahul Shelf to cover the continent.[3]


    http://everything.explained.at/New_Guinea/

    New Guinea Explained

    Image Name:    New guinea named.PNG
    Image Caption: Political division of New Guinea
    Locator Map:   LocationNewGuinea.png
    Location:          Island north of Australian continent
    Coordinates:     -5.33333333333333 0.6
    Area:    786,000 km²(303,500 mi sq)
    Highest Mount: Puncak Jaya
    Elevation:          4,884 m (16,023 ft)
    Country:           Indonesia
    Country Admin Divisions Title:  Provinces
    Country Admin Divisions:          Papua & West Papua
    Population:       6.4 million
    Population As Of:         2000
    Density:            8/km²

    New Guinea, located just north of Australia, is the world’s second largest island, having become separated from the Australian mainland when the area now known as the Torres Strait flooded after the last ice age. The name Papua has also been long-associated with the island (see History below).

    The western half of the island contains the Indonesian provinces of Papua and West Papua, while the eastern half forms the mainland of the independent country of Papua New Guinea. At 4,884 metres (16,023 feet), Puncak Jaya (sometimes called Mount Carstensz) makes New Guinea the world’s fourth highest landmass.

    Political divisions

    The island of New Guinea is divided politically into roughly equal halves across a north-south line:

    1. The western portion of the island located west of 141°E longitude, (except for a small section of territory to the east of the Fly River which belongs to Papua New Guinea) was formerly a Dutch colony and is now incorporated into Indonesia as the provinces:
    2. West Papua with Manokwari as its capital.
    3. Papua with the city of Jayapura as its capital. A proposal to split this province into Central Papua (Papua Tengah) and East Papua (Papua Timur) has not been implemented.

    The eastern part forms the mainland of Papua New Guinea, which has been an independent country since 1975. It was formerly a territory governed by Australia, consisting of the Trust Territory of New Guinea (formerly German New Guinea) and the Territory of Papua. The country consists of four regions:

    1. Papua, consisting of Western, Gulf, Central, Oro (Northern) and Milne Bay provinces.
    2. Highlands, consisting of Southern Highlands, Enga Province, Western Highlands, Simbu and Eastern Highlands provinces.
    3. Momase, consisting of Morobe, Madang, East Sepik and Sandaun (West Sepik) provinces.
    4. Islands, consisting of Manus, West New Britain, East New Britain and New Ireland provinces, and the Bougainville Autonomous Province.

    Each province has an administration headed by a governor who is also a member of the national parliament.

    People

    The current population of the island of New Guinea is about 7.1 million people. Many believe human habitation on the island has been dated to as early as approximately 40,000 BP[1], and first settlement possibly dated back to 60,000 years ago has been proposed. The island is presently populated by very nearly a thousand different tribal groups and a near-equivalent number of separate languages, which makes New Guinea the most linguistically diverse area in the world.

    Ethnologue 14th edition lists 826 languages of Papua New Guinea and 257 languages of Irian Jaya, total 1071 languages, with 12 languages overlapping. They fall into one of two groups, the Papuan languages and the Austronesian languages. The separation was not merely linguistic; warfare among societies was a factor in the evolution of the men’s house: separate housing of groups of adult men, from the single-family houses of the women and children, for mutual protection against the other groups.

    Pig-based trade between the groups and pig-based feasts are a common theme with the other peoples of southeast Asia and Oceania. Most societies practise agriculture, supplemented by hunting and gathering. The great variety of the island’s indigenous populations are frequently assigned to one of two main ethnological divisions, based on archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence: the Papuan and Austronesian groups.

    Current evidence indicates that the Papuans (who constitute the majority of the island’s peoples) are descended from the earliest human inhabitants of New Guinea. These original inhabitants first arrived in New Guinea at a time (either side of the Last Glacial Maximum, approx 21,000 years ago) when the island was connected to the Australian continent via a land bridge, forming the landmass known as Sahul.

    These peoples had made the (shortened) sea-crossing from the islands of Wallacea and Sundaland (the present Malay Archipelago) by at least 40,000 years ago, subsequent to the dispersal of peoples from Africa (circa) 50,000 years ago. The ancestral Austronesian peoples are believed to have arrived considerably later, approximately 3,500 years ago, as part of a gradual seafaring migration from Southeast Asia, possibly originating in eastern China.

    Austronesian-speaking peoples colonised many of the offshore islands to the north and east of New Guinea, such as New Ireland and New Britain, with settlements also on the coastal fringes of the main island in places. Human habitation of New Guinea over tens of thousands of years has led to a great deal of diversity, which was further increased by the later arrival of the Austronesians and the more recent history of European and Asian colonisation.

    This process has been accelerated by the transmigration programs and conscious policies enacted by successive Indonesian governments, which over recent decades has encouraged the resettlement of as many as one million immigrants to western New Guinea, predominantly from the islands of Java, Madura, and Bali. Large swathes of New Guinea are yet to be explored by scientists and anthropologists. The province of Irian Jaya or West Papua is home to an estimated 44 uncontacted tribal groups.[2]

    Biodiversity and ecology

    With some 786,000 km² of tropical land – less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the earth’s surface — New Guinea has an immense ecological value in terms of biodiversity, with between 5 to 10% of the total species on the planet. This percentage is about the same amount as the United States or Australia.

    A high percentage of New Guinea’s species are endemic (found nowhere else), and thousands are still unknown to Western science: probably well over 200,000 species of insect, between 11,000 to 20,000 plant species; over 650 resident bird species, including most species of birds of paradise and bowerbirds, parrots, and cassowaries; over 400 amphibians; 455 butterfly species; marsupials including Bondegezou, Goodfellow’s Tree-kangaroo, Huon Tree-kangaroo, Long-beaked Echidna, Tenkile, Agile Wallaby, Alpine Wallaby, cuscuses and possums; and various other mammal species.

    Most of these species are shared, at least in their origin, with the continent of Australia, which was until fairly recent geological times, part of the same landmass. See Australia-New Guinea for an overview. The island is so large that it is considered ‘nearly a continent’ in terms of its biological distinctiveness.

    Biogeographically, New Guinea is part of Australasia rather than the Indomalayan realm, although New Guinea’s flora has many more affinities with Asia than its fauna, which is overwhelmingly Australian. Botanically, New Guinea considered part of Malesia, a floristic region that extends from the Malay Peninsula across Indonesia to New Guinea and the East Melanesian Islands.

    The flora of New Guinea is a mixture of many tropical rainforest species with origins in Asia, together with typically Australasian flora. Typical southern hemisphere flora include the conifers Podocarpus and the rainforest emergents Araucaria and Agathis, as well as tree ferns and several species of Eucalyptus.

    New Guinea has 284 species and six orders of mammals: (monotremes, three orders of marsupials, rodents and bats); 195 of the mammal species (69%) are endemic. New Guinea has 578 species of breeding birds, of which 324 species are endemic. The island’s frogs are one of the most poorly known vertebrate groups, currently totalling 282 species, but this number is expected to double or even triple when all species have been documented.

    New Guinea has a rich diversity of coral life and 1,200 species of fish have been found. Also about 600 species of reef-building coral — the latter equal to 75 percent of the world’s known total. The entire coral area covers 18 million hectares off a peninsula in northwest New Guinea.

    History

    The first inhabitants of New Guinea arrived at least around 40,000 years ago, having travelled through the south-east Asian peninsula. These first inhabitants, from whom the Papuan people are probably descended, adapted to the range of ecologies and in time developed one of the earliest known agricultures.

    Remains of this agricultural system, in the form of ancient irrigation systems in the highlands of Papua New Guinea, are being studied by archaeologists. This work is still in its early stages so there is still uncertainty as to precisely what crop was being grown, or when/where agriculture arose.

    The gardens of the New Guinea Highlands are ancient, intensive permacultures, adapted to high population densities, very high rainfalls (as high as 10,000 mm/yr (400 in/yr)), earthquakes, hilly land, and occasional frost. Complex mulches, crop rotations and tillages are used in rotation on terraces with complex irrigation systems.

    Western agronomists still do not understand all practices, and it has been noted that native gardeners are as or more successful than most scientific farmers in raising certain crops.[3] There is evidence that New Guinea gardeners invented crop rotation well before western Europeans.[4]

    A unique feature of New Guinea permaculture is the silviculture of Casuarina oligodon, a tall, sturdy native ironwood tree, suited to use for timber and fuel, with root nodules that fix nitrogen. Pollen studies show that it was adopted during an ancient period of extreme deforestation.

    In more recent millennia another wave of people arrived on the shores of New Guinea. These were the Austronesian people, who had spread down from Taiwan, through the south-east Asian archipelago, colonising many of the islands on the way. The Austronesian people had technology and skills extremely well adapted to ocean voyaging and Austronesian language speaking people are present along much of the coastal areas and islands of New Guinea.

    The first European contact with New Guinea was by Portuguese and/or Spanish sailors in the 16th century. In 1526-27 Don Jorge de Meneses saw the western tip of New Guinea and named it ilhas dos Papuas. Ploeg[5] reports that the word papua is often said to derive from the Malay word papua or pua-pua, meaning ‘frizzly-haired’, referring to the highly curly hair of the inhabitants of these areas.

    Another possibility, (put forward by Sollewijn Gelpke in 1993) is that it comes from the Biak phrase sup i papwa which means ‘the land below [the sunset]‘ and refers to the islands west of the Bird’s Head, as far as Halmahera. Whatever the origin of the name Papua, it came to be associated with this area, and more especially with Halmahera, which was known to the Portuguese by this name during the era of their colonisation in this part of the world.

    In 1545 the Spaniard Yñigo Ortiz de Retez sailed along the north coast of New Guinea as far as the Mamberamo River near which he landed, naming the island ‘Nueva Guinea’. The first map showing the whole island (as an island) was published in 1600 and shows it as ‘Nova Guinea’.

    The first European claim occurred in 1828, when the Netherlands formally claimed the western half of the island as Netherlands New Guinea.

    In 1883, following a short-lived French annexation of New Ireland, the British colony of Queensland annexed south-eastern New Guinea. However, the Queensland government’s superiors in the United Kingdom revoked the claim, and (formally) assumed direct responsibility in 1884, when Germany claimed north-eastern New Guinea as the protectorate of German New Guinea (also styled Kaiser-Wilhelmsland).

    The first Dutch government posts were established in 1898 and in 1902 Manokwari on the North coast, Fak-Fak in the West and Merauke in the South at the border with British New Guinea. Both the Dutch and the British tried to suppress warfare and head-hunting once common between the villages of the populace.

    In 1905 the British government renamed their territory to Papua and in 1906 transferred total responsibility for it to Australia. During World War I, Australian forces seized German New Guinea, which in 1920 became a League of Nations mandated territory of Australia. The Australian territories became collectively known as The Territories of Papua and New Guinea (until February 1942).

    Before about 1930, most European maps showed the highlands as uninhabited forests. When first flown over by aircraft, numerous settlements with agricultural terraces and stockades were observed.

    The most startling discovery took place on August 4 1938, when Richard Archbold discovered the Grand Valley of the Balim River which had 50,000 yet-undiscovered Stone Age farmers living in orderly villages. The people, known as the Dani, were the last society of its size to make first contact with the western world.[6]

    Netherlands New Guinea and the Australian territories were invaded in 1942 by the Japanese. The Australian territories were put under military administration and were known simply as New Guinea. The highlands, northern and eastern parts of the island became key battlefields in the South West Pacific Theatre of World War II. Papuans often gave vital assistance to the Allies, fighting alongside Australian troops, and carrying equipment and injured men across New Guinea.

    Following the return to civil administration, the Australian section was known as the Territory of Papua-New Guinea (1945-49) and then as Papua and New Guinea. Although the rest of the Dutch East Indies achieved independence as Indonesia on December 27, 1949, the Netherlands regained control of western New Guinea.

    During the 1950s the Dutch government began to prepare Netherlands New Guinea for full independence and allowed elections in 1959; an elected Papuan council, the New Guinea Council (Nieuw Guinea Raad) took office on April 5, 1961. The Council decided on the name of West Papua, a national emblem, a flag called the Morning Star or Bintang Kejora, and a national anthem; the flag was first raised – next to the Dutch flag – on December 1, 1961.

    However, Indonesia threatened with an invasion, after full mobilisation of its army, by August 15 1962, after receiving military help from the Soviet Union. Under strong pressure of the United States government (under the Kennedy administration) the Dutch, who were prepared to resist an Indonesian attack, attended diplomatic talks.

    On October 1, 1962, the Dutch handed over the territory to a temporary UN administration (UNTEA). On May 1 1963, Indonesia took control. The territory was renamed West Irian and then Irian Jaya. In 1969 Indonesia, under the 1962 New York Agreement, was required to organize a plebiscite to seek the consent of the Papuans for Indonesian rule.

    This so called Act of Free Choice (Pepera) resulted, under strong threats and intimidations of the Indonesian military, in a 100% vote for continued Indonesian rule. There has been considerable resistance to Indonesian integration and occupation, both through civil disobedience (such as Morning Star flag raising ceremonies) and via the formation of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, or Free Papua Movement) in 1965.

    Amnesty International has estimated more than 100,000 Papuans, one-sixth of the population, have died as a result of government-sponsored violence against West Papuans,[7] while others had previously specified much higher death tolls.[8] From 1971, the name Papua New Guinea was used for the Australian territory. On September 16 1975, Australia granted full independence to Papua New Guinea.

    In 2000, amid increasing discontent and opposition to Indonesian rule, Irian Jaya was formally renamed “The Province of Papua” and a large measure of “special autonomy” was granted in 2001. This law on special autonomy, however, was never implemented. On the contrary, at the beginning of 2003 President Megawati Sukarnoputri announced the division of the province into three parts, while the name “Papua” for the province would again revert to Irian.

    With strong public protest by Papuans, only the province of West Irian Jaya (with Manokwari as its capital and covering the Bird’s Head Peninsula) was split from Papua Province. In 2005 a new proposal came from Jakarta to split the province into five provinces. This plan has not yet been implemented.

    Geology

    A central east-west mountain range dominates the geography of New Guinea, over 1600 km in total length. The western half of the island of New Guinea contains the highest mountains in Oceania, rising up to 4884 m high, and ensuring a steady supply of rain from the tropical atmosphere.

    The tree line is around 4000 m elevation and the tallest peaks contain permanent equatorial glaciers – which are disappearing due to a changing climate. Various other smaller mountain ranges occur both north and west of the central ranges. Except in high elevations, most areas possess a warm humid climate throughout the year, with some seasonal variation associated with the northeast monsoon season.

    Puncak Jaya, sometimes known by its former Dutch name Carstensz Pyramid, is a mist covered limestone mountain peak 4884 m above sea level. Another major habitat feature is the vast southern and northern lowlands. Stretching for hundreds of kilometers, these include lowland rainforests, extensive wetlands, savanna grasslands, and some of the largest expanses of mangrove forest in the world.

    The southern lowlands are the site of Lorentz National Park, also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. The Sepik, Mamberamo, Fly, and Digul rivers are the island’s major river systems that drain in roughly northeast, northwest, southeast, and southwest directions respectively. Many of these rivers have broad areas of meander and result in large areas of lakes and freshwater swamps.

    In New Guinea is many of the world’s ecosystem types: permanent equatorial glaciers, alpine tundra, savanna, montane and lowland rainforest, mangroves, wetlands, lake and river ecosystems, seagrasses, and some of the richest coral reefs on the planet.

    Cannibalism

    New Guinea is well-known in the popular imagination for ritual cannibalism that was apparently practiced by some (but far from all) ethnic groups.[9] The Korowai and Kombai peoples of southeastern Papua are two of the last groups in the world said to have engaged in cannibalism in the recent past.

    In the Asmat area of southwestern Papua, it may have occurred up until the early 1970s. Among the Fore people in Papua New Guinea, ritualized cannibalism led to the spread of kuru, prompting the Australian administration to outlaw the practice in 1959. Cannibalism may have arisen in New Guinea due to the scarcity of sources of protein.

    The traditional crops, taro and sweet potato, are low in protein compared to wheat and pulses, and the only edible animals available were small and unappetizing, such as mice, spiders, and frogs. Anthropologists dispute this theory, pointing out that a number of medium-sized marsupials are endemic to the island, and are hunted by the natives, and that pigs were introduced several thousand years before contact with Europeans.


    http://everything.explained.at/Western_New_Guinea/

    Western New Guinea Explained

    (Redirected from West Papua|the Indonesian province with the same name|West Papua (province))

    Western New Guinea is the Indonesian western half of the island of New Guinea and consists of two provinces, Papua and West Papua. It was previously known by various names, including Netherlands New Guinea (1895–1 October 1962), West New Guinea (1 October 1962–1 May 1963), West Irian (1 May 1963–1973), and Irian Jaya (1973–2000).

    The incorporation of western New Guinea into Indonesia remains controversial with human rights non-governmental organizations (NGO), including some supporters in the United States Congress and other bodies, as well as many of the territory’s indigenous population. Many indigenous inhabitants and human rights NGOs refer to it as West Papua.

    Western New Guinea was annexed by Indonesia under the 1969 Act of Free Choice in accord with the controversial 1962 New York Agreement. During the rule of President Suharto from 1965 to 1998, human rights and other advocates criticized Indonesian government policies in the province as repressive, and the area received relatively little attention in Indonesia’s development plans.

    During the Reformasi period from 1998 to 2001, Papua and other Indonesian provinces received greater regional autonomy. In 2001, a law was passed granting “Special Autonomy” status to Papua, although many of the law’s requirements have either not been implemented or have been only minimally implemented.[1]

    In 2003, the Indonesian central government declared that the province would be split into three provinces: Papua Province, Central Irian Jaya Province, and West Irian Jaya Province. Opposition to this resulted in the plan for Central Irian Jaya province being scrapped, and even the designation of West Irian Jaya Province is still legally unclear.

    Despite this, the West Irian Jaya (Irian Jaya Barat) province was formed on February 6, 2006 and the name was officially changed to West Papua (Papua Barat) on February 7, 2007. The independent sovereign state of Papua New Guinea (PNG) borders Papua Province to the east.

    History

    Papuans have inhabited the Australasian continental island of Papua for over 40,000 years while Austronesians have been there for several thousand years. These groups have developed diverse cultures and languages in situ; there are over 300 languages and two hundred additional dialects in West New Guinea alone (See Papuan languages, Austronesian languages).

    On June 13, 1545 Ortiz de Retez, in command of the San Juan, left port in Tidore, an island of the East Indies and sailed to reach the northern coast of the island of New Guinea, which he ventured along as far as the mouth of the Mamberamo River. He took possession of the land for the Spanish Crown, in the process giving the island the name by which it is known today. He called it Nueva Guinea owing to the resemblance of the local inhabitants to the peoples of the Guinea coast in West Africa.

    Dutch control

    In 1828, the Dutch claimed the south coast west of the 141st meridian, and in 1848 added the north coast west of Humboldt Bay. The border at 141° East was ‘marked’ on the coast by iron signpost displaying the Dutch coat of arms by an expedition in 1881[2].The Netherlands established trading posts in the area after Britain and Germany recognised the Dutch claims in treaties of 1885 and 1895.

    At much the same time, Britain claimed south-east New Guinea later known as the Territory of Papua and Germany claimed the northeast, later known as the Territory of New Guinea. In 1923, the Nieuw Guinea Beweging (New Guinea Movement) was created in the Netherlands by ultra right-wing supporters calling for Dutchmen to create a tropical Netherlands in Papua.

    This prewar movement without full government support was largely unsuccessful in its drive, but did coincide with the development of a plan for Eurasian settlement of the Dutch Indies to establish Dutch farms in northern West New Guinea. This effort also failed as most returned to Java disillusioned, and by 1938 just 50 settlers remained near Hollandia and 258 in Manokwari.

    In the early 1930s, the need for a national Papuan government was discussed by graduates of the Dutch Protestant Missionary Teachers College in Mei Wondama, Manokwari. These graduates continued their discussions among the wider community and quickly succeeded in cultivating a desire for national unity across the region and its three hundred languages.

    The College Principal Rev. Kijne also composed “Hai Tanahku Papua” (“Oh My Land Papua”), which in 1961 was adopted as the national anthem.

    A exploration company NNGPM was formed in 1935 by Shell (40%), Mobil (40%) and Chevron’s Far Pacific investments (20%) to explore West New Guinea. During 1936, Jean Dozy working for NNGPM reported the world’s richest gold and copper deposits in a mountain near Timika which he named Ertsberg (Mountain of Ore).

    Unable to license the find from the Dutch or indigenous landowners, NNGPM maintained secrecy of the discovery.

    In 1942, the northern coast of West New Guinea and the nearby islands were occupied by Japan. Allied forces expelled the Japanese in 1944, and with Papuan approval, the United States constructed a headquarters for Gen. Douglas MacArthur at Hollandia (now Jayapura) and over twenty US bases and hospitals intended as a staging point for operations taking of the Philippines.

    West New Guinean farms supplied food for the half million US troops. Papuan men went into battle to carry the wounded, acted as guides and translators, and provided a range of services, from construction work and carpentry to serving as machine shop workers and mechanics. The Dutch retained possession of West New Guinea from 1945, but upon reaching Java west they did not find similar levels of support from the population of Java.

    Indonesian leaders Mohammad Hatta and Sukarno had declared independence weeks before and claimed all Dutch possessions should become part of the United States of Indonesia. The dispute continued until the Round Table Conference, which was held from August to October 1949 at the Hague.

    Unable to reach a compromise on the matter of West New Guinea, the conference closed with the parties agreeing to discuss the West New Guinea issue within one year. In December 1950[3] the United Nations requested the Special Committee on Decolonization to accept transmission of information regarding the territory in accord with Article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations.

    Article 73 constituted formal recognition of the territory’s right to independence and the Netherlands obligation to assist. After repeated Indonesian claims to possession of Dutch New Guinea, the Netherlands invited Indonesia to present its claim before an International Court of Law.

    Indonesia declined the offer. Concerned by Indonesian insurgencies beginning in 1950, the Netherlands accelerated its education and technical programs in preparation for independence. A naval academy was opened in 1956, and Papuan troops and naval cadets began service by 1957.

    By 1959, Papuans were nurses, dental surgeons, draftsmen, architects, telephone repairmen, and radio and power technicians, cultivating a range of experimental commercial crops and serving as police, forestry and meteorological staff. This progress towards self-government was documented in reports prepared for the United Nations from 1950 to 1961.

    Local Council elections were held and Papuan representatives elected from 1955. On 6 March 1959 the New York Times published an article revealing the Dutch government had discovered alluvial gold flowing into the Arafura Sea and were searching for the gold’s mountain source.

    In 1959, Freeport Sulphur approached the Dutch East Borneo company for partnership. An agreement signed in January 1960 to lodge a Dutch claim for the Timika area as a copper deposit did not inform the government about the gold or known extent of the copper deposit.

    Election of a national parliament began on 9 January 1961 in fifteen electoral districts with direct voting in Manokwari and Hollandia to select 26 Councillors, of whom 16 were elected, 12 appointed, 23 were Papuan, and one female Councillors. The Councillors were sworn in by Governor Platteel on 1 April 1961, and the Council took office on 5 April 1961.

    The inauguration was attended by officials from Australia, Britain, France, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and members of the South Pacific Commission; a large Australian delegation was headed by Mr Hasluck MP and included Sir Alistair McMullan, President of Australian Senate. The United States declined the invitation to attend the inauguration.

    After news that the Hague was considering a United States plan to trade the territory to United Nations administration, Papuan Councillors met for six hours in the New Guinea Council building on 19 October 1961 to elect a National Committee which drafted a Manifesto for Independence & Self-government, a National flag (Morning Star), State Seal, selected a national anthem (“Hai Tanahkoe Papua” / “Oh My Land Papua”), and called for the people to be known as Papuans.

    The New Guinea Council voted unanimous support of these proposals on 30 October 1961, and on the 31st October 1961 presented the Morning Star flag and Manifesto to Governor Platteel who said (translated) “Never before has the oneness of the Council been put forward so strongly.”

    The Dutch recognized the flag and anthem on November 18, 1961 (Government Gazettes of Dutch New Guinea Nos. 68 and 69), and these ordinances came into effect on December 1, 1961.

    Indonesian control and resistance

    At the US White House a proposal to have the Netherlands trade West New Guinea to Indonesia was opposed by the Bureau of European Affairs who viewed this “would simply trade white for brown colonialism”; but from April 1961 Robert Komer and McGeorge Bundy promoted a plan to have the United Nations give the transfer an outward appearance of legitimacy.

    Though reluctant, John Kennedy was told the transfer of the territory was the only means to prevent Indonesia turning to Soviet aid.[4] The Morning Star flag was raised next to the Dutch tricolour on December 1, 1961, an act which Papuan independence supporters celebrate each year at flag raising ceremonies.

    National Committee Chairman Mr Inury said: “My Dear compatriots, you are looking at the symbol of our unity and our desire to take our place among the nations of the world. As long as we are not really united we shall not be free. To be united means to work hard for the good of our country, now, until the day that we shall be independent, and further from that day on.”

    On January 2, 1962 Indonesia which had made seven known insurgency attempts since 1950 now created the Mandala Command headed by Brig. General Suharto to coordinate military efforts for the territory.

    Two previous insurgencies, Pasukan Gerilya 100 (November 1960) and Pasukan Gerilya 200 (September 1961), were followed by Pasukan Gerilya 300 with 115 insurgents leaving Jakarta on four Jaguar class torpedo boats (January 15), intercepted in the Aru Sea the lead boat was sunk and 51 survivors were picked up after Commodore Yos Sudarso went down with his boat.[5]

    Continuing US efforts to have the Netherlands secretly negotiate the transfer of the territory to Indonesian administration eventually succeeded in creating the “New York Agreement” signed in August 1962. The Australian government, which previously had been a firm supporter of the Papuan independence, also reversed its policy to support incorporation with Indonesia.[6][7]

    The agreement, ratified in the UN on September 21, 1962, stipulated that authority would transfer to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) on 1 October 1963, and that once UNTEA had informed the public of the terms of the Agreement had the option to transfer administration of the territory to Indonesia after May 1, 1963, until such time as an “Act of Free Choice” could determine the will of the people.

    Under Article 18 of the Agreement “all adults, male and female, not foreign nationals” were to be allowed to vote in an Act “in accordance with international practice”. On May 1, 1963 UNTEA transferred total administration of West New Guinea to the Republic of Indonesia.

    The capital Hollandia was renamed Kota Baru for the transfer to Indonesian administration and on 5 September 1963 West Irian was declared a “quarantine territory” with Foreign Minister Subandrio administrating visitor permits.

    Since the 1960s, consistent reports have filtered out of the territory of government suppression and terrorism, including murder, political assassination, imprisonment, torture, and aerial bombardments. The Indonesian government disbanded the New Guinea Council and forbade the use of the West Papua flag or the singing of the national anthem.

    There has been considerable resistance to Indonesian integration and occupation, both through civil disobedience (such as Morning Star flag raising ceremonies) and via the formation of the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, or Free Papua Movement) in 1965. The movement’s military arm is the TPN, or Liberation Army of Free Papua.

    Amnesty International has estimated more than 100,000 Papuans, one-sixth of the population, have died as a result of government-sponsored violence against West Papuans,[8] while others had previously specified much higher death tolls.[9] After General Suharto replaced Sukarno as President of Indonesia, Freeport Sulphur was the first foreign company awarded a mining license, a 30 year license to mine the Tembagapura region of Papua for gold and copper.

    In 1969, General Sarwo Edhi Wibowo oversaw the Indonesian conduct of the widely criticized “Act of Free Choice.” Prior to the vote, the Indonesian military rounded up and detained for one month a large group of Papuan tribal leaders. The Papuans were daily threatened with death at gunpoint if the entire group did not vote to continue Indonesian rule.

    Assembled troops and two Western observers acted as witnesses to the public vote; however, the Western observers left after witnessing the first two hundred (of 1,054) votes for integration. Concerned over Communism in South East Asia, and with an eye toward extracting Papua’s vast mineral wealth, the US and other Western powers ignored protests over the circumstances surrounding the vote [10]

    The process was deemed to have been an “Act of Free Choice” in accordance with the United Nations requirements, and Indonesia formally annexed the territory in August. Dissenters mockingly called it the “Act of No Choice” or “Act Free of Choice.”

    In 1971, construction of the world’s largest copper and gold mine (also the world’s largest open cut mine) began. Under an Indonesian agreement signed in 1967 (two years before the “Act of Free Choice”), the US company Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. obtained a 30-year exclusive mining license from Suharto in (dating from the mine’s opening in 1973).

    The pact was extended in 1991 by another 30 years. After 1988 with the opening of the Grasberg mine it became the biggest gold mine and lowest extraction-price copper mine in the world. Locals made several violent attempts to dissuade the mine owners, including sabotage of a pipeline that July, but order was quickly restored.

    In the 1970s and 1980s the Indonesian state accelerated its transmigration program, under which tens of thousands of Javanese and Sumatran migrants were resettled to Papua. Prior to Indonesian rule, the non-indigenous Asian population was estimated at 16,600; while the Papuan population were a mix of Roman Catholics, Protestants and pagan people following tribal religions[11].

    Critics suspect that the transmigration program’s purpose was to tip the balance of the province’s population from the heavily Melanesian Papuans toward western Indonesians, thus further consolidating Indonesian control. The transmigration program officially ended in the late 1990s, although so-called “spontaneous migration” by western Indonesians voluntarily relocating to provinces such as Papua seeking economic opportunity has increased and remains at high levels.

    A separatist congress in 2000 again calling for independence resulted in a military crackdown on independence supporters. In 2001, a now-majority Islamic population was given limited autonomy. An August 2001, US State Department travel warning advised “all travel by US and other foreign government officials to Aceh, Papua and the Moluccas (provinces of North Maluku and Maluku) has been restricted by the Indonesian government”.

    During the Abdurrahman Wahid administration in 2000, Papua gained a “Special Autonomy” status, an attempted political compromise between separatists and the central government that has weak support within the Jakarta government.

    Despite lack of political will of politicians in Jakarta to proceed with real implementation of the Special Autonomy, which is stipulated by law, the region was divided into two provinces: the province of Papua and the province of Irian Jaya Barat, based on a Presidential Instruction in January 2001, soon after President Wahid was impeached by the Parliament and replaced by Vice President Megawati Sukarnoputri.

    The division of the province has neither directly cancelled the Law of Special Autonomy of Papua nor engaged ongoing protest in the region. There was brief consideration of dividing the territory into thirds, but the plan was quickly abandoned. The plan again gained support in early 2008.

    In January 2006, 43 refugees in a traditional canoe landed on the coast of Australia with a banner stating the Indonesian military was carrying out a genocide in Papua. They were transported to an Australian immigration detention facility on Christmas Island, 2,600 km (1,400 nmi) north-west of Perth, and 360 km (190 nmi) south of the western head of Java.

    On March 23, 2006, the Australian government granted temporary protection visas to 42 of the 43 having determined all 43 were bonafide refugees.[12] A day later Indonesia recalled its ambassador to Australia.[13]

    A number of expatriate Papuans currently campaign for independence in Australia, the United Kingdom and other countries, and call for international support for their campaigns. Their claims, which sometimes include allegations of historic or present genocide, are strongly challenged by Indonesia, and Papuan independence is not supported by any recognised Government except that of Vanuatu.

    Regions

    Indonesia structures regions by Regencies and districts within those. Though names and areas of control of these regional structures can vary over time in accord with changing political and other requirements, in 2004 Papua province (including what is now West Papua province) consisted of 27 regencies (kabupaten), 2 cities (kotamadya), 117 subdistricts (kecamatan), 66 kelurahan, and 830 villages (desa).

    As of 2004, the Regencies in Papua province were: Asmat, Biak Numfor, Boven Digoel, Jayapura, Kota Jayapura, Jayawijaya, Keerom, Mappi, Merauke, Mimika, Nabire, Paniai, Pegunungan Bintang, Puncak Jaya, Sarmi, Supiori, Tolikara, Waropen, Yahukimo, and Yapen Waropen.

    The Regencies in the same time period for West Papua province were: Fak-Fak, Kaimana, Manokwari, Raja Ampat, Sorong, Kota Sorong, Sorong Selatan, Teluk Bintuni, and Teluk Wondama. In 2003 the western-most third of Papua province was split into a separate province, called West Irian Jaya, which was itself renamed West Papua province in 2007.

    Jayapura, founded in 1910 as Hollandia, had by 1962 developed into a city with modern civil, educational, and medical services. Since Indonesian administration these services have been replaced by Indonesian equivalents such as the TNI (military) replacing the Papuan police force. The name of the city has been changed from Hollandia, to Kotabaru then Sukarnopura and finally Jayapura.

    It is the largest city in Western New Guinea, boasting a small but active tourism industry, it is a neat and pleasant city built on a slope overlooking the bay. Cenderawasih University campus houses the Jayapura Museum. Tanjung Ria beach, well-known to the Allies during World War II, is a popular holiday resort now with facilities for water sports, and General Douglas MacArthur’s World War II quarters are still intact.

    Geography

    Climate
    Rainfall 100 to 10,000 mm (4 – 400 in)
    Temperature     0 to 32 °C (32 – 90 °F)
    Humidity           80%

    A central East-West mountain range dominates the geography of New Guinea, over in total length. The western section is around long and across. Steep mountains 3,000 to 4,000 m (9,850 – 13,100 ft) and up to high along the range ensures a steady supply of rain from the tropical atmosphere. The tree line is around elevation and the tallest peaks are snowbound year round.

    Both north and west of the central ranges the land remains mountainous – mostly 1,000 to 2,000 m (3,300 – 6,660 ft) high – and covered by thick rain forest with a warm humid climate year round. The third major habitat feature is the south east lowlands with extensive wetlands stretching for hundreds of kilometers.

    The province has 40 major rivers, 12 lakes, and 40 islands. The Mamberamo river, sometimes referred to as the “Amazon of Papua” is the province’s largest river which winds through the northern part of the province. The result is a large area of lakes and rivers known as the Lakes Plains region.

    The vast southern lowlands, which consist of a mosaic of habitats including mangrove, tidal and freshwater swamp forest, and lowland rainforest, are home to a dense population of fishermen and gatherers such as the Asmat people.

    The famous Baliem Valley, home of the Dani people is a tableland above sea level in the midst of the central mountain range; Puncak Jaya (formerly Carstensz Pyramid) is a mist covered limestone mountain peak above sea level, the highest point in Indonesia.

    The border with Papua New Guinea mostly follows the 141st meridian, with one section defined by the Fly River. This border is largely unguarded, and has seen a dramatic amount of refugees and illegal aliens cross over to PNG to flee the Indonesians. There are no reliable estimates on how many have crossed.

    Demographics

    The combined population of the Indonesian provinces of West Irian Jaya and Papua, constituting all of Western New Guinea, was estimated to be 2,646,489 in 2005. The two largest cities in the territory are Sorong in the northwest of the Bird’s Head Peninsula and Jayapura in the northeast. Both cities have a population of approximately 200,000.

    As in Papua New Guinea and some surrounding east Indonesian provinces, a large majority of the population is Christian. In the 2000 census 54% of West Papuans identified themselves as Protestant, 24% as Catholic, 21% as Muslim, and less than 1% as either Hindu or Buddhist. There is also substantial practice of animism among the major religions, but this is not recorded by the Indonesian census.

    Tribes

    Western New Guinea is home to around 312 different tribes, including some uncontacted peoples.[14] The following are some of the most well-known:

    1. Amungme
    2. Asmat
    3. Bauzi
    4. Biak (Byak)
    5. Damal
    6. Dani
    7. Kamoro
    8. Kombai
    9. Korowai
    10. Lani
    11. Mee
    12. Nduga
    13. Sawi
    14. Sentani
    15. Yali

    Ecology

    A vital tropical rainforest with the tallest tropical trees and vast biodiversity, Papua’s known forest fauna includes marsupials (including possums, wallabies, tree-kangaroos, cuscus), other mammals (including the endangered long-beaked echidna), many bird species (including birds of paradise, cassowaries, parrots, cockatoos), the world’s longest lizards (Papua monitor) and some of the world’s largest butterflies.

    Animal Class    Est. Number
    Mammals         180
    Marsupial Mammals     70
    Birds    700
    Endemic Birds  450
    Bats     70

    The island has an estimated 16,000 species of plant, 124 genera of which are endemic. The extensive waterways and wetlands of Papua are also home to salt and freshwater crocodile, tree monitor, flying foxes, osprey, bats and other animals; while the equatorial glacier fields remain largely unexplored.

    In February 2005, a team of scientists exploring the Foja Mountains discovered numerous new species of birds, butterflies, amphibians, and plants, including a species of rhododendron which may have the largest bloom of the genus.[15]

    Ecological dangers include deforestation at an alarming rate; the spread of the exotic Crab-eating Macaque (monkey) which now threatens the existence of many native species; pollution such as Grasberg mine dumping 190,000 tons of copper and gold tailings into the rivers system each day.

    Culture

    West Papuans share many affinities with the culture of Papua New Guinea (PNG) to the east. As with PNG, the peoples of the highlands have distinct traditions and languages from peoples of the coasts.

    Many aspects of West Papuan culture have been forcibly repressed since the area’s 1963 incorporation into the Indonesian state. In 2001 the province was granted special autonomy by the Indonesian government, opening the possibility of increased indigenous cultural production and arts venues.

    Some Papuans fear that the history of Indonesian repression, education, propaganda, and transmigration have negatively impacted Papuan cultures. In March 2003 John Rumbiak stated that Papuan culture “will be extinct” within 10 to 20 years, if the present rate of assimilation in the region continues.[16]

    In response to such criticism the Indonesian government states that the special autonomy arrangement specifically addresses the ongoing preservation of Papua culture, and that the transmigration program was “designed specifically to help the locals through knowledge transfer.”[17] Papua advocates view such responses as a continuation of the Indonesian state’s tendency to view Papuans as “primitives” in need of “development.”[18]

    In some parts of the highlands, the koteka is traditionally worn by males in ceremonial contexts. Despite government efforts to suppress it, the use of the koteka as everyday dress by Dani males in Western New Guinea is still very common.

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 6:54 AM on 2012/05/23 Permalink
    Tags: Freeport has been robbering indonesian gold as much as hundreds of tons annually   

    Setiap Tahunnya Ratusan Ton Emas Indonesia Dirampok oleh Freeport McMoran aka Freeport Indonesia 

    Setiap Tahunnya Ratusan Ton Emas Indonesia Dirampok oleh Freeport McMoran alias Freeport Indonesia

    oleh Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 23 May 2012, 06.54

    1. Di tahun 1935, Shell (40%), Mobil (40%), dan Chevron’s Far Pacific Investments (20%) berpatungan membentuk NNGPM guna mengeksplorasi Papua Barat.
    2. Di tahun 1936, Jean Dozy yang bekerja di NNGPM menemukan deposit emas dan tembaga terkaya di dunia di gunung dekat Timika yang dinamakan Ertsberg (Gunung Bijih). Kegagalan mendapatkan lisensi dari Belanda atau pribumi pemilik lahan, membuat temuan NNGPM dijaga kerahasiaanya.
    3. Per 06.03.1959, New York Times memuat berita penemuan Belanda di dataran berisi endapan emas yang mengalir ke laut Arafura dan melanjutkan pencarian ke gunung yang menjadi sumber asal emas.
    4. Berdasarkan pemberitaan NYT, Freeport Sulphur menjajaki kemitraan dengan perusahaan Dutch East Borneo. Kesepakatan di bulan Januari 1960 berisi usulan klaim Belanda atas wilayah Timika sebagai deposit tembaga, tetapi tidak menyinggung sedikit pun tentang emas atau materi ikutan lainnya dalam deposit tembaga.
    5. Dibawah kepresidenan Soeharto, di tahun 1967, Freeport Sulphur menjadi perusahaan asing pertama yang mendapatkan lisensi pertambangan, yakni diizinkan menambang emas dan tembaga di wilayah Tembagapura selama 30 tahun.
    6. Di tahun 1971, konstruksi pertambangan tembaga dan emas terbesar di dunia (dan juga pertambangan open cut terbesar di dunia). Freeport Sulphur yang berganti nama menjadi Freeport-McMoran diizinkan menambang selama 30 tahun terhitung sejak operasional pertambangan dimulai di tahun 1973.
    7. Di tahun 1991, pakta tersebut diperpanjang 30 tahun lagi.
    8. Di tahun 1998, operasionalisasi pertambangan Grasberg membuat Freeport menjadi pertambangan emas terbesar di dunia dan pertambangan tembaga dengan harga ekstraksi paling rendah di dunia.
    9. Limbah tailing tembaga dan emas Freeport Indonesia dibuang sebanyak 190.000 ton setiap harinya.

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/artikel/interviews-and-in-depth-story/14508-jfk-in&

    http://papindo.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/jfk-indonesia-cia-and-freeport/

    JFK, Indonesia, CIA and Freeport

    Oleh Lisa Pease(*), 2011-10-30 22:10
    Uploaded by Victor Mambor

    Walau dominasi Freeport atas gunung emas di Papua dimulai sejak tahun 1967, namun kiprahnya di negeri ini sudah dimulai beberapa tahun sebelumnya. Dalam tulisannya, Lisa Pease mendapatkan temuan jika Freeport Sulphur, demikian nama perusahaan itu awalnya, nyaris bangkrut berkeping-keping ketika terjadi pergantian kekuasaan di Kuba tahun 1959.

    Saat itu Fidel Castro berhasil menghancurkan rezim diktator Batista. Oleh Castro, seluruh perusahaan asing di negeri itu dinasionalisasikan. Freeport Sulphur yang baru saja hendak melakukan pengapalan nikel produksi perdananya terkena imbasnya. Ketegangan terjadi. Menurut Lisa Pease, berkali-kali CEO Freeport Sulphur merencanakan upaya pembunuhan terhadap Castro, namun berkali-kali pula menemui kegagalan.

    Ditengah situasi yang penuh ketidakpastian, pada Agustus 1959, Forbes Wilson yang menjabat sebagai Direktur Freeport Sulphur melakukan pertemuan dengan Direktur pelaksana East Borneo Company, Jan van Gruisen. Dalam pertemuan itu Gruisen bercerita jika dirinya menemukan sebuah laporan penelitian atas Gunung Ersberg (Gunung Tembaga) di Irian Barat yang ditulis Jean Jaques Dozy di tahun 1936. Uniknya, laporan itu sebenarnya sudah dianggap tidak berguna dan tersimpan selama bertahun-tahun begitu saja di perpustakaan Belanda. Van Gruisen tertarik dengan laporan penelitian yang sudah berdebu itu dan membacanya.

    Dengan berapi-api, Van Gruisen bercerita kepada pemimpin Freeport Sulphur itu jika selain memaparkan tentang keindahan alamnya, Jean Jaques Dozy juga menulis tentang kekayaan alamnya yang begitu melimpah. Tidak seperti wilayah lainnya diseluruh dunia, maka kandungan biji tembaga yang ada disekujur tubuh Gunung Ersberg itu terhampar di atas permukaan tanah, jadi tidak tersembunyi di dalam tanah.

    Mendengar hal itu, Wilson sangat antusias dan segera melakukan perjalanan ke Irian Barat untuk mengecek kebenaran cerita itu. Di dalam benaknya, jika kisah laporan ini benar, maka perusahaannya akan bisa bangkit kembali dan selamat dari kebangkrutan yang sudah di depan mata.

    Selama beberapa bulan, Forbes Wilson melakukan survey dengan seksama atas Gunung Ersberg dan juga wilayah sekitarnya. Penelitiannya ini kelak ditulisnya dalam sebuah buku berjudul The Conquest of Cooper Mountain. Wilson menyebut gunung tersebut sebagai harta karun terbesar yang untuk memperolehnya tidak perlu menyelam lagi karena semua harta karun itu telah terhampar di permukaan tanah. Dari udara, tanah disekujur gunung tersebut berkilauan ditimpa sinar matahari.

    Wilson juga mendapatkan temuan yang nyaris membuatnya gila. Karena selain dipenuhi bijih tembaga, gunung tersebut ternyata juga dipenuhi bijih emas dan perak!! Menurut Wilson, seharusnya gunung tersebut diberi nama GOLD MOUNTAIN, bukan Gunung Tembaga.

    Sebagai seorang pakar pertambangan, Wilson memperkirakan jika Freeport akan untung besar dalam waktu tiga tahun sudah kembali modal. Pimpinan Freeport Sulphur ini pun bergerak dengan cepat. Pada 1 Februari 1960, Freeport Sulphur meneken kerjasama dengan East Borneo Company untuk mengeksplorasi gunung tersebut.

    Namun lagi-lagi Freeport Sulphur mengalami kenyataan yang hampir sama dengan yang pernah dialaminya di Kuba. Perubahan eskalasi politik atas tanah Irian Barat tengah mengancam. Hubungan Indonesia dan Belanda telah memanas dan Soekarno malah mulai menerjunkan pasukannya di Irian Barat.

    Tadinya Wilson ingin meminta bantuan kepada Presiden AS John Fitzgerald Kennedy agar mendinginkan Irian Barat. Namun ironisnya, JFK malah spertinya mendukung Soekarno. Kennedy mengancam Belanda, akan menghentikan bantuan Marshall Plan jika ngotot mempertahankan Irian Barat. Belanda yang saat itu memerlukan bantuan dana segar untuk membangun kembali negerinya dari puing-puing kehancuran akibat Perang Dunia II terpaksa mengalah dan mundur dari Irian Barat.

    Ketika itu sepertinya Belanda tidak tahu jika Gunung Ersberg sesungguhnya mengandung banyak emas, bukan tembaga. Sebab jika saja Belanda mengetahui fakta sesungguhnya, maka nilai bantuan Marshall Plan yang diterimanya dari AS tidak ada apa-apanya dibanding nilai emas yang ada di gunung tersebut.

    Dampak dari sikap Belanda untuk mundur dari Irian Barat menyebabkan perjanjian kerjasama dengan East Borneo Company mentah kembali. Para pemimpin Freeport jelas marah besar. Apalagi mendengar Kennedy akan menyiapkan paket bantuan ekonomi kepada Indonesia sebesar 11 juta AS dengan melibatkan IMF dan Bank Dunia. Semua ini jelas harus dihentikan!

    Segalanya berubah seratus delapan puluh derajat ketika Presiden Kennedy tewas ditembak pada 22 November 1963. Banyak kalangan menyatakan penembakan Kennedy merupakan sebuah konspirasi besar menyangkut kepentingan kaum Globalis yang hendak mempertahankan hegemoninya atas kebijakan politik di Amerika.

    Presiden Johnson yang menggantikan Kennedy mengambil sikap yang bertolak belakang dengan pendahulunya. Johnson malah mengurangi bantuan ekonomi kepada Indonesia, kecuali kepada militernya. Salah seorang tokoh di belakang keberhasilan Johnson, termasuk dalam kampanye pemilihan presiden AS tahun 1964, adalah Augustus C.Long, salah seorang anggota dewan direksi Freeport.

    Tokoh yang satu ini memang punya kepentingan besar atas Indonesia. Selain kaitannya dengan Freeport, Long juga memimpin Texaco, yang membawahi Caltex (patungan dengan Standard Oil of California). Soekarno pada tahun 1961 memutuskan kebijakan baru kontrak perminyakan yang mengharuskan 60 persen labanya diserahkan kepada pemerintah Indonesia. Caltex sebagai salah satu dari tiga operator perminyakan di Indonesia jelas sangat terpukul oleh kebijakan Soekarno ini.

    Augustus C.Long amat marah terhadap Soekarno dan amat berkepentingan agar orang ini disingkirkan secepatnya. Mungkin suatu kebetulan yang ajaib. Augustus C.Long juga aktif di Presbysterian Hospital di NY dimana dia pernah dua kali menjadi presidennya (1961-1962). Sudah bukan rahasia umum lagi jika tempat ini merupakan salah satu simpul pertemuan tokoh CIA.

    Lisa Pease dengan cermat menelusuri riwayat kehidupan tokoh ini. Antara tahun 1964 sampai 1970, Long pensiun sementara sebagai pemimpin Texaco. Apa saja yang dilakukan orang ini dalam masa itu yang di Indonesia dikenal sebagai masa yang paling krusial. Pease mendapatkan data jika pada Maret 1965, Augustus C.Long terpilih sebagai Direktur Chemical Bank, salah satu perusahaan Rockefeller. Augustus 1965, Long diangkat menjadi anggota dewan penasehat intelejen kepresidenan AS untuk masalah luar negeri. Badan ini memiliki pengaruh sangat besar untuk menentukan operasi rahasia AS di Negara-negara tertentu. Long diyakini salah satu tokoh yang merancang kudeta terhadap Soekarno, yang dilakukan AS dengan menggerakkan sejumlah perwira Angkatan Darat yang disebutnya sebagai Our Local Army Friend.

    Salah satu bukti sebuah telegram rahasia Cinpac 342, 21 Januari 1965, pukul 21.48, yang menyatakan jika kelompok Jendral Suharto akan mendesak angkatan darat agar mengambil-alih kekuasaan tanpa menunggu Soekarno berhalangan. Mantan pejabat CIA Ralph Mc Gehee juga pernah bersaksi jika hal itu benar adanya.

    Awal November 1965, satu bulan setelah tragedi terbunuhnya sejumlah perwira loyalis Soekarno, Forbes Wilson mendapat telpon dari Ketua Dewan Direktur Freeport, Langbourne Williams, yang menanyakan apakah Freeport sudah siap mengekplorasi gunung emas di Irian Barat. Wilson jelas kaget. Ketika itu Soekarno masih sah sebagai presiden Indonesia bahkan hingga 1967, lalu darimana Williams yakin gunung emas di Irian Barat akan jatuh ke tangan Freeport?

    Lisa Pease mendapatkan jawabannya. Para petinggi Freeport ternyata sudah mempunyai kontak dengan tokoh penting di dalam lingkaran elit Indonesia. Mereka adalah Menteri Pertambangan dan Perminyakan Ibnu Soetowo dan Julius Tahija. Orang yang terakhir ini berperan sebagai penghubung antara Ibnu Soetowo dengan Freeport. Ibnu Soetowo sendiri sangat berpengaruh di dalam angkatan darat karena dialah yang menutup seluruh anggaran operasional mereka.

    Sebab itulah, ketika UU no 1/1967 tentang Penanaman Modal Asing (PMA) yang draftnya dirancang di Jenewa-Swiss yang didektekan Rockefeller, disahkan tahun 1967, maka perusahaan asing pertama yang kontraknya ditandatangani Suharto adalah Freeport!. Inilah kali pertama kontrak pertambangan yang baru dibuat. Jika di zaman Soekarno kontrak-kontrak dengan perusahaan asing selalu menguntungkan Indonesia, maka sejak Suharto berkuasa, kontrak-kontrak seperti itu malah merugikan Indonesia.

    Untuk membangun konstruksi pertambangan emasnya itu, Freeport mengandeng Bechtel, perusahaan AS yang banyak mempekerjakan pentolan CIA. Direktur CIA John McCone memiliki saham di Bechtel, sedangkan mantan Direktur CIA Richards Helms bekerja sebagai konsultan internasional di tahun 1978.

    Tahun 1980, Freeport menggandeng McMoran milik “Jim Bob” Moffet dan menjadi perusahaan raksasa dunia dengan laba lebih dari 1,5 miliar dollar AS pertahun. Tahun 1996, seorang eksekutif Freeport-McMoran, George A.Maley, menulis sebuah buku berjudul “Grasberg” setelab 384 halaman dan memaparkan jika tambang emas di Irian Barat itu memiliki deposit terbesar di dunia, sedangkan untuk bijih tembaganya menempati urutan ketiga terbesar didunia.

    Maley menulis, data tahun 1995 menunjukkan jika di areal ini tersimpan cadangan bijih tembaga sebesar 40,3 miliar dollar AS dan masih akan menguntungkan 45 tahun ke depan. Ironisnya, Maley dengan bangga juga menulis jika biaya produksi tambang emas dan tembaga terbesar di dunia yang ada di Irian Barat itu merupakan yang termurah di dunia!!

    Istilah Kota Tembagapura itu sebenarnya menyesatkan dan salah. Seharusnya EMASPURA. Karena gunung tersebut memang gunung emas, walau juga mengandung tembaga. Karena kandungan emas dan tembaga terserak di permukaan tanah, maka Freeport tinggal memungutinya dan kemudian baru menggalinya dengan sangat mudah.

    Freeport sama sekali tidak mau kehilangan emasnya itu dan membangun pipa-pipa raksasa dan kuat dari Grasberg-Tembagapura sepanjang 100 kilometer langsung menuju ke Laut Arafuru dimana telah menunggu kapal-kapal besar yang akan mengangkut emas dan tembaga itu ke Amerika. Ini sungguh-sungguh perampokan besar yang direstui oleh pemerintah Indonesia sampai sekarang!!!

    Kesaksian seorang reporter CNN yang diizinkan meliput areal tambang emas Freeport dari udara. Dengan helikopter ia meliput gunung emas tersebut yang ditahun 1990-an sudah berubah menjadi lembah yang dalam. Semua emas, perak, dan tembaga yang ada digunung tersebut telah dibawa kabur ke Amerika, meninggalkan limbah beracun yang mencemari sungai-sungai dan tanah-tanah orang Papua yang sampai detik ini masih saja hidup bagai di zaman batu.

    Freeport merupakan ladang uang haram bagi para pejabat negeri ini, yang dari sipil maupun militer. Sejak 1967 sampai sekarang, tambang emas terbesar di dunia itu menjadi tambang pribadi mereka untuk memperkaya diri sendiri dan keluarganya. Freeport McMoran sendiri telah menganggarkan dana untuk itu yang walau jumlahnya sangat besar bagi kita, namun bagi mereka terbilang kecil karena jumlah laba dari tambang itu memang sangat dahsyat. Jika Indonesia mau mandiri, sektor inilah yang harus dibereskan terlebih dahulu.

    Sumber : Blog Media Kata, telah dimuat di majalah Probe

    2011-07-05 – 07:47:23 -


    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/interviews-a-indepth-stories/13055-benarkah-pt-freeport-hanya-menambang-emas-perak-dan-tembaga

    Benarkah PT Freeport Hanya Menambang Emas, Perak dan Tembaga?

    2011-07-04 22:47:23

    Jubi–Perusahaan tambang asal Amerika Serikat yang berkantor pusat di New Orleans ini selalu mendapat sorotan serius dari berbagai pihak baik kalangan politisi maupun aktivis lingkungan termasuk pakar tambang. Belakangan perusahaan ini dituding bukan hanya menambang tembaga, perak dan emas tetapi terdapat sembilan mineral yang telah ditambang.

    Bahkan salah seorang anggota DPRP Papua pernah melontarkan kemungkinan PT Freeport mengelola urainium. Belakangan informasi urainium hilang ditelan waktu. Benarkah demikian, hanya tiga atau sebanyak sembilan bahan tambang mineral ikutan yang punya nilai ekonomis untuk ditambang? Mungkin yang bisa diketahui hanya emas (Au), perak (Ag), tembaga(Cu), besi(Fe) dan mungkin pula belerang (S).

    Forbes Wilson dalam bukunya berjudul The Conquest of Copper Mountain saat pertama kali mengikuti ekspedisi PT Freeport 1960 menyebutkan sebanyak 300 Kilogram contoh batuan permukaan yang dibawah pulang usai ekspedisi, ternyata Ertsberg terdiri dari 40-50 persen oksida besi dalam bentuk mineral magnetik, 3,5 persen tembaga dalam bentuk mineral kalkoporit dan bornit (keduanya sullfida besi dan tembaga). Dengan demikian Ertsberg yang pertama kali memproduksi tambang  tembaga 1973 sampai 1988 merupakan deposit tembaga terkaya yang pernah ditemukan di atas permukaan bumi.

    Ertsberg berproduksi hingga 1980 terus menyusut dan ditutup pada 1988 hingga sekarang bekas galiannya sudah berbentuk danau. Danau ini berisi persediaan air untuk pengolahan biji dan dinamakan Danau Wilson. Selanjutnya eksplorasi tambang berpindah ke Gunung Grasberg sejak 1988 hingga sekarang.George A Mealey dalam bukunya berjudul Grasberg menyebut Grasberg sebagai endapan emas tembaga porfiri, yakni suatu endapan dimana dapat diharapkan produksi tembaga (Cu), emas(Au)  dan mungkin juga perak (Ag).

    George Mealey memperhatikan struktur geologi Grasberg mirip dengan struktur di Ok Tedi Mining di Papua New Guinea (berbatasan langsung dengan Kabupaten Pegunungan Bintang) yaitu suatu endapan tembaga emas porfiri yang sedang ditambang di Papua New Guinea. Ok Tedi Mining memiliki endapan permukaan yang kaya akan emas (gold capping deposit).

    Lebih lanjut George Mealey menjelaskan jika pada 4 Juni 1988 sebuah lobang dalam 611 meter yang dibor tegak lurus kedalam, dapat diselesaikan. Sepanjang 591 meter dari lobang bor ini mengandung 1,69 persen tembaga, dan 1,77 gram per ton emas.”Barangkali inilah sebuah contoh inti (core sample) yang paling luar biasa yang pernah diperoleh dalam pertambangan tembaga,” tulis George Mealey.

    George Mealey menyebut Grasberg merupakan permata paling besar dan paling berkilau dalam mahkota PT Freeport. Barulah awal 1996 diperoleh kenyataan bahwa Grasberg mengandung deposit sebesar 1,76 milyar ton batuan bijih dengan kadar rata-rata 1,11 persen tembaga atau sama dengan 35,2 milyard pon logam tembaga murni.

    Kandungan emasnya juga sangat tinggi yaitu sebanyak 49 juta troy ons atau sama dengan separoh jumlah seluruh emas yang diperoleh dari California selama demam emas dulu. Bagi George Mealey ahli tambang yang bertahun-tahun bekerja di Chili menyebutkan Grasberg merupakan salah satu penemuan cadangan mineral yang terpenting dalam abad ini.

    Cadangan tembaga dan emas yang ditemukan demikian besar, sehingga tidak akan habis ditambang selama setengah abad yang akan datang. Ini berarti usia penambangan di Grasber sudah mencapai usia 22 tahun saja, dan tinggal 28 tahun lagi, penambangannya dihentikan. Tambang Grasberg sendiri ditambang dengan cara tambang terbuka(open pit mining) sampai 2015. Setelah itu penambangan akan dilanjutkan dengan cara tambang bawah tanah yang menggunakan sistem block caving, sehingga daerah di sekitar tambang terbuka akan runtuh secara perlahan.

    Berbicara soal mineral ikutan beberapa pakar geologi dan tambang menyebutkan kalau mineral ikutan adalah mineral yang mempunyai nilai sangat rendah sekali atau juga sangat tidak berharga yang terdapat dalam bijih. Bahkan tidak jarang mineral ikutan disebut pula sebagai mineral penggangu(gangue mineral).

    Emas menurut pakar geologi termasuk logam yang bersifat lunak dan mudah ditempa, kekerasannya berkisar antara 2,5 – 3 (skala Mohs). Berat jenisnya tergantung pada jenis dan kandungan logam lain yang berpadu dengannya. Mineral pembawa emas biasanya berasosiasi dengan mineral ikutan (gangue minerals).

    Mineral ikutan tersebut umumnya kuarsa, karbonat, turmalin, flourpar, dan sejumlah kecil mineral non logam. Mineral pembawa emas juga berasosiasi dengan endapan sulfida yang telah teroksidasi. Mineral pembawa emas terdiri dari emas nativ, elektrum, emas telurida, sejumlah paduan dan senyawa emas dengan unsur-unsur belerang, antimon, dan selenium. Elektrum adalah  jenis lain dari emas nativ dan hanya terdapat kandungan perak di dalamnya >20%.

    Emas terbentuk dari proses magmatisme atau pengkonsentrasian di permukaan. Beberapa endapan terbentuk karena proses metasomatisme kontak dan larutan hidrotermal, sedangkan pengkonsentrasian secara mekanis menghasilkan endapan letakan (placer). Genesa emas sendiri dikategorikan menjadi dua antara lain endapan primer dan endapan plaser.

    Selain itu sifat Radioaktivitas mineral tercermin dari unsur-unsur kimia yang ada dalam mineral tersebut yang unsur-unsur tersebut dapat mengeluarkan sinar-sinar α, β, dan γ. Ada mineral-mineral unsur-unsur yang dapat bersifat radioaktiv seperti Uranium(U), Radium(Ra), Thorium(Th), Plumbum(Pb), Vanadium(V) dan Kalium(K). Biasanya, mineral_mineral yang bersifat radioaktiv dijumpai dalam mineral-mineral ikutan atau mineral-minera yang terbetas jumlahnya.

    Kegunaan dari mineral-mineral radioaktiv adalah dapat digunakan sebagai sumber energi dan dapat juga digunakan untuk mengukur waktu Geologi dengan cara menghitung waktu paruhnya (half time). Dari berbagai mineral ikutan, salah satu yang pasti ekonomis diproduksi adalah belerang (S). Mineral ini dapat diolah menjadi H2SO4 (Asam Sulfat) yang bisa dijadikan bahan pupuk. Rata-rata produksi PT FI dari tahun 1993-1996 adalah 1.315.706 ton/tahun. Jika kandungan belerang berkisar antara 27,95-31,52 persen maka setiap tahun perusahaan menghasilkan belerang sebesar 394.711,8 ton.

    Berdasarkan Keputusan Menteri Pertambangan dan Energi No:1166K/844/MPE/1992 tanggal 11 September 1992 maka royalti yang akan diterima pemerintah dari belerang U$ 2,1 per ton. Dengan demikian pemerintah akan memperoleh royalti tambahan sebesar U$ 828.894,78 per tahun. Harga belerang pada sekitar 1990 an kala itu berkisar U$ 60 per ton. Ini berarti PT FI akan mendapat tambahan penghasilan sebesar U$ 23.682.708 per tahun.

    Jika belerang dijadikan Asam Sulfat perusahaan akan mendapat pemasukan yang lebih besar lagi sebab harga asam sulfat per ton adalah U$ 65 per ton. Lepas dari pro dan kontra tentang mineral ikutan baik secara ekonomis untuk ditambang atau tidak, namun lebih dari itu sejauh mana peran pemerintah Indonesia dalam memonitoring dan mengetahui akal bulus dan sepak terjang perusahaan tambang di wilayahnya.

    Ataukah hanya sekadar menerima kenyataan karena tak punya kemampuan dan dana mengelola investasi tambang hingga dengan rela harus menerima kenyataan kehilangan kekayaan alamnya sendiri. (Dominggus A Mampioper)


    http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/frus/summaries/950306_FRUS_XXIII_1961-63.html

    Summaries of FRUS Volumes

    19950306

    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
    95/03/06 Foreign Relations, 1961-63, Vol XXIII, Southeast Asia
    Office of the Historian

    Office of the Historian
    Bureau of Public Affairs
    United States Department of State

    Volume XXIII (Department of State Publication No. 10174; GPO Stock No 044-000-02389-0; ISBN 0-16-042054-7) may be purchased from the U.S. Government Printing Office for $46.00 (postpaid; $57.50 for foreign orders). Please use the order form below.

    Order from: Superintendent of Documents P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954 Telephone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250

    Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Volume XXIII

    Southeast Asia

    (This is not an official statement of policy by the Department of State; it is intended only as a guide to the contents of this volume.)

    The Kennedy administration took office believing that previous U.S. policy toward Indonesia had been a mistake. Eisenhower’s secret support of the rebellion of dissident army factions in the outer islands had alienated the central government in Java. Even when the Eisenhower administration ended its covert support of the rebels and decided to look to the Indonesian Army as the best hedge against the growing influence of the Indonesian Communist Party (the PKI), relations with President Sukarno remained strained.

    The principal reason for this friction was the Eisenhower administration’s insistence on neutrality in the dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands over West New Guinea (called West Irian by the Indonesians). Indonesia interpreted U.S. unwillingness to support Sukarno’s claim to the Dutch colonial territory of West New Guinea as support for Dutch colonialism.

    U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Howard P. Jones, waited only days after the inauguration of President Kennedy to submit a broad seven-point plan to prevent Indonesia from falling under Communist control and to win it over to the west. Key points in his plan were the resolution of the West New Guinea (WNG) question whereby Indonesia received a promise that the territory would be reunited with Indonesia. Equally important was the creation of a personal relationship between Presidents Kennedy and Sukarno. (143)

    The suggested pro-Sukarno policy was not without its critics. In the Department of State, the Bureau of European Affairs was sympathetic to the Dutch view that annexation by Indonesia would simply trade white for brown colonialism, and wanted to put Indonesia on notice that the United States would not accept force as a solution to the dispute. (146) Secretary of State Dean Rusk supported closer relations between Sukarno and Kennedy (147), but he was not convinced that the United States should force its NATO ally to relinquish its colony directly to Indonesia.

    The Central Intelligence prepared a blistering anti-Sukarno brief. (155) There was, however, a group within the U.S. Government that was very interested in accommodation with Sukarno. White House and National Security Council staffers Robert Johnson and Robert Komer and the President’s Deputy Special Assistant for National Security Affairs Walt Rostow initiated their own review of U.S.-Indonesian policy, using the advice of academic specialists and concluded that U.S. policy toward Indonesia needed to change. (154, 156, 157)

    In early April 1961, Rusk presented the President with a proposal to support a U.N. trusteeship for WNG administered by Malaya. (158, 160) Komer considered the proposal inadequate since it did not spell out for the President that trusteeship was not just a “graceful out for the Netherlands,” but also “a cover for eventually giving WNG to Indonesia.” (159)

    When Kennedy met with Netherlands Foreign Minister Joseph Luns, he was skeptical. (162) Rusk was more sympathetic to Luns in his conversations, suggesting that the United States was still opposed to the use of force by Indonesia and considered trusteeship leading to self-determination the best course for WNG. (163, 164) The pro-Indonesia group at the White House were not pleased, believing that Rusk’s solution would do nothing to avert a major crisis over “West Irian.” (165-167)

    President Sukarno’s visit to Washington in late April 1961 provided the next focal point. State Department and White House officials presented the President with extensive briefing material recommending positions shaded to their own viewpoints. (168-171) When President Kennedy met with Sukarno, he soon discovered West Irian was the major issue on Sukarno’s mind. Kennedy tried all the arguments against Indonesian annexation, but Sukarno parried them. When the President raised the issue of the trusteeship, Sukarno replied, “we would be willing to borrow the hand of the United Nations to transfer the territory to Indonesia.” (172)

    As a result of this conversation, the Department of State and the White House joined in a concerted effort to solve the WNG dispute before it escalated into regional war. They attempted to bridge the gap between the Dutch desire for a trusteeship that guaranteed self-determination for the inhabitants of WNG and the Indonesian demand that a trusteeship served only as an interim stage to Indonesian administration. The Department suggested leaving the final disposition of the territory open ended. (175) As part of the process, the Department also encouraged the Netherlands and Indonesia to hold secret bilateral negotiations. (176)

    After consultations with the Netherlands in June 1961, the Department of State agreed that the United Nations offered the only practical means of solving the problem. (181, 182) When the matter was broached with Indonesia, it became clear that the Indonesians required assurances that “internationalization” of the problem through the United Nations would result in Indonesian control. They feared the Netherlands would use the United Nations to delay or prevent an Indonesian takeover. (185) Rusk worried about pushing the Dutch too far (187); the pro-Indonesia group at the White House feared the Dutch were not being pressed enough to dissuade Indonesia from reverting to the military option. (189, 190)

    At the United Nations, Luns proposed transfer of the territory to the United Nations, which would dispatch a commission to organize a plebiscite on Papuan self- determination. (193) Rostow encouraged Kennedy to take the initiative with Rusk and insist that the only resolution of the issue was one that “looks to Indonesian control.”

    Rostow suggested that the Dutch were “playing a double game” by attempting to keep West New Guinea out of Indonesia’s hands and forcing the United States to side with the Dutch or seeming to “oppose the principle of self-determination.” Rostow recommended speaking frankly to the Dutch by warning them that the ultimate end of their policies would be military collision with Indonesia and that meaningful self- determination for “stone-age Papuans” would take too long. (197)

    At the U.N. General Assembly meeting in autumn 1961, the United States inspired a compromise resolution, which failed to obtain a 2/3 majority. The resolution was floated in the face of Indonesian opposition and temporarily worsened U.S.-Indonesian relations. White House advocates of a pro-Indonesian policy believed that the United States had acted not as an “honest Broker,” but as an advocate of the wrong side. (200-203) Sukarno interpreted the U.S. campaign at the United Nations as a retreat from the policy of neutrality. Sukarno professed to be “shattered.” (210)

    On December 1, 1961, Kennedy’s National Security Adviser, McGeorge Bundy, gave his support to Indonesia. Bundy told the President that “most of the specialists believed that the Secretary’s [Rusk's] respect for the Australians and dislike of Sukarno has led him to take a position in the UN debate which, if continued, can only favor the Communists.”

    Bundy realized that “Sukarno is not your own favorite statesman,” but he endorsed Rostow and Robert Johnson’s views that “no one in this towndoes not believe that, sooner or late, the Indonesia will get West Irian.” The United States must work with this trend and not allow the Soviet bloc to exploit the issue to draw Indonesia even closer to it. (205) Bundy’s intercession got the President’s attention and moved U.S. policy away from neutrality toward active support of Indonesia. (208-210)

    As a result, the United States encouraged both the Netherlands and Indonesia to engage in bilateral negotiations and suggested that U.N. Secretary-General U Thant should serve as a third party moderator. (218) Both sides were reluctant to enter negotiations without some guidelines. The Dutch insisted that the transfer of WNG have some provision for self-determination; the Indonesians required that the Dutch agree, as a prerequisite to the talks, that WNG’s administration (not its sovereignty) be transferred to Indonesia. (224-225)

    President Kennedy then sent his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to Indonesia and the Netherlands to encourage bilateral negotiations under U.N. aegis. While Robert Kennedy could give no assurances to the Indonesians that the Netherlands would agree to transfer WNG to Indonesia, he could say that the United States believed this was the likely outcome.

    Robert Kennedy himself feared he would be caught in the middle of the conflicting demands and be able to satisfy neither party. (226-230) Robert Kennedy encouraged Sukarno to talk without preconditions and offered the opinion that the result of the negotiations would end satisfactorily for Indonesia. (231) Kennedy sensed that Sukarno was willing to negotiate without preconditions so long as he knew that the United States would use its influence with the Netherlands to encourage a transfer. (232)

    Rusk was still unwilling to give the Indonesians an assurance that the Dutch would not accept as the basis for talks. (235) Sukarno inched closer toward talks without preconditions, but with a mutually negotiated agenda. (236, 237) Robert Kennedy’s discussions with the Dutch were guided by a Department of State-White House drafted telegram authorizing him to agree to the United States operating as the moderator of the talks, but insisting that the Netherlands agree that the agenda would include as an item the transfer of administration to Indonesia. (239) When Kennedy put his idea to the Dutch, they were shocked by what they considered a U.S. request for capitulation. A day after Robert Kennedy left The Hague, Luns considerably softened his opposition. (241)

    In March 1962, Luns came to Washington to meet with U.S. officials, including the President, and asked permission to reinforce Netherlands naval presence in WNG through transit of the Panama Canal. The President turned him down flat. (244, 245) After this painful signal, the Dutch agreed to secret talks with a third party. The Indonesians also agreed to talks without preconditions provided that the transfer of WNG could be the first issue raised by Indonesia. (246) Both sides clearly wanted an American as the third party and former Ambassador Ellsworth Bunker was offered and accepted the job. (248)

    The Ambassadorial level secret talks, held in Middleburg, Virginia, in late March 1962, began with promise but were soon stalemated, primarily because of Indonesia intransigence. To make matters worse, the Dutch and Indonesians engaged in sporadic naval engagements in the waters around WNG. It became clear in Washington that a demarche to Sukarno would be required to keep the negotiations moving. (251)

    Ellsworth Bunker proposed a formula whereby Indonesia was given administration of the territory and the Netherlands was assured that the United Nations would be involved in the process of self- determination for the inhabitants. The transfer process would take 2 years, with Indonesians replacing U.N. administrators during the second year. The United Nations would assist inhabitants in expressing their freedom of choice at a later date to be negotiated. (254)

    Sukarno agreed to the formula (255), but the Netherlands did not. They claimed it was a shocking betrayal by the United States. (256, 258) Dutch disappointment soon waned and they began to suggest that if the Bunker formula was modified to give greater assurances for free choice, they might be willing to accept it. (259)

    Komer, who had became so pro-Indonesia as to become the butt of jokes among the White House staff about being Sukarno’s personal representative, argued that the Dutch were stalling. (260, 261) Komer convinced the President to send Rusk a message suggesting that in a meeting with Luns in Athens, Rusk threaten to publish Bunker’s formula. (262) This new initiative convinced the Dutch to work on the basis of the Bunker formula, but they were not yet willing to accept Indonesian administration. (263)

    To get the Indonesians to resume secret talks, the Department instructed Jones to inform them that while the United States could not guarantee the success of the negotiations, there was a reasonable chance that they would succeed. (267) Komer’s idea of a public surfacing of the Bunker formula as a prod to the Dutch was accepted within the Department of State. It was released as a U.N. document on May 25. (269, 270)

    The next day, the Netherlands formally agreed to resume the Middleburg talks. After some hesitation, (272, 273), Indonesia also agreed. The outstanding issues for the talks were the Indonesian desire to shorten the 2-year transition period and the Netherlands insistence that it was the absolute minimum time for a transfer. Both sides were concerned about mechanisms for self-determination. Indonesia wanted to minimize the role of the United Nations; the Netherlands wanted to maximize it. (274)

    As the talks proceeded, the Indonesians proved difficult, insisting on a 1-year transition period, minimal U.N. participation, and special status for their paratrooper forces which had infiltrated into WNG. They threatened to recall Foreign Minister Subandrio, who had joined the talks in Middleburg. At Department of State suggestion (280), President Kennedy meet with Subandrio and told him that if the Indonesians resorted to force when they were on the brink of achieving one on the greatest diplomatic victories of all time, the United States would switch sides and support the Dutch. (281, 284, 285)

    In the face of this direct threat, Sukarno acceded to revised terms of understanding whereby the Dutch would transfer administration to the United Nations, which could then start transferring administration to Indonesia after May 1, 1963 (less than a year). Indonesian forces within WNG would be at the disposal of the U.N. authority, which could also use Netherlands and Indonesian officials.

    One year before “self-determination,” which could be no later than 1969, the United Nations would appoint a staff to advise and assist with arrangements. The Indonesian flag could be hoisted along with the U.N. flag after January 1, 1963.

    The agreement was almost a total victory for Indonesia and a defeat for the Netherlands, who wanted to leave the territory, but not on terms that assured that WNG would soon be part of Indonesia. The underlying reason that the Kennedy administration pressed the Netherlands to accept this agreement was that it believed that Cold War considerations of preventing Indonesia from going Communist overrode the Dutch case.

    The Kennedy administration then sought to capitalize on the good will it had won in Indonesia by establishing better relations with Sukarno and upgrading U.S. economic and military assistance programs. (286, 287) The Department of State produced an extensive plan of action for Indonesia which combined immediate actions and longer term goals. (291)

    The President agreed that the emergency actions, such $60-70 million in P.L. 480 food aid, $17 million in technical assistance, a modest military assistance program, and $15-20 million in grants for spare parts and start-up material, but wanted more work done on the longer range measures. (294)

    The plan to win over Indonesia had mixed results. Sukarno opposed the formation of the Malaysia Federation with threats and a guerrilla campaign. (300, 301) The Indonesian economy did not respond, and Sukarno was unable to introduce the kinds of reforms the United States believed that it required. (302) Ambassador Jones and staffers at the White House hoped that President Kennedy would accept Sukarno’s longstanding invitation to visit Indonesia, but scheduling difficulties prevented a visit in 1963. (293, 303)

    Indonesia pressed U.S. oil companies to provide Indonesia with a larger share of the proceeds. A mission by Governor Wilson Wyatt succeeded in defusing the potential crisis. (306-308) The United States shifted its focus from economic development to the more immediate problem of stabilizing the failing Indonesian economy, but with little success. (311-313, 316)

    Jones suggested that the downward trend in Indonesia made a Presidential trip even more important and hoped that a visit by Kennedy would moderate Sukarno. The Department agreed to inform Sukarno that Kennedy would visit Indonesia early in a second term provided Sukarno abandoned his policy of confrontation with the United Kingdom and Malaysia. (318)

    When informed of the possibility of a Kennedy visit, Sukarno was enthusiastic. On November 19, Jones, who was in Washington for consultations, received a commitment from the President to go to Indonesia. Three days later, Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. The Johnson administration would face new challenges in U.S.-Indonesian relations. Malaysia

    A federation of Malaya, Singapore, North Borneo (Sabah), and Sarawak had been a British goal since 1960 and was an idea to which the United States gave tacit support. (329) The United States viewed the potential Malaysian Federation as a stabilizing and anti-Communist measure, but Indonesia and the Philippines both opposed it.

    Miffed at not being consulted, Sukarno convinced himnself it was a colonialist plot; the Philippines opposed the federation because of their claims to parts of North Borneo. The Philippines pursued its claim through diplomatic channels, and Indonesia embarked on a policy of confrontation and guerrilla war in early 1963. (330)

    One of Sukarno’s tactics was a demand for a referendum in the Borneo Territories under U.N. auspices. The United States supported the idea even though it delayed postponement of the inauguration of the federation. Rusk and Kennedy convinced the skeptical British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan that “a little give now may be worth the risk, especially if the likely alternative is a further step- up of subversive pressure.” (338)

    The United Nations reported on September 14, 1963, that the inhabitants of North Borneo and Sarawak favored joining Malaysia. Indonesia and the Philippines denounced the report; Indonesia stepped up its confrontation. (335)

    Australia sent troops to Malaysia to combat Indonesian subversion and hoped to obtain from the United States an assurance that its troops in Malaysia would be covered under the ANZUS Treaty. Under Secretary of State Averell Harriman agreed with the Australians in June 1963 that ANZUS should cover Australian troops, but only in the case of overt attacknot subversionby Indonesia.

    After Australia gave a formal commitment to defend Malaysia on September 23, 1963, President Kennedy wanted further clarification; he did not want the Australians to turn around one day and say “where are the Americans.” Nor did Kennedy want to fight another war in Southeast Asia. (337, 338)

    On October 16, McGeorge Bundy handed the Australian Ambassador a paper that promised that the United States would consult with Australia about appropriate political and military support if its troops were attacked. In view of extensive U.S. commitments, Australia could count only on U.S. air and sea forces and logistical support in the last resort. (343)

    In late 1963, the United States encouraged Philippine- Indonesian-Malaysian contacts through quiet diplomacy in conjunction with the British, Australians, and New Zealanders while at the same time trying to use U.S. economic aid as a lever on Sukarno. (342, 345) The results were mixed and the Indonesian campaign of confrontation continued as a serious problem for the Johnson administration.

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 6:54 AM on 2012/05/23 Permalink  

    Kekalahan Belanda mempertahankan Irian Jaya sebagai wilayah jajahannya yang sarat dengan emas, mineral lain, migas, dan kayu

    By Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 23 May 2012

    Motif Soekarno mempertahankan Irian Jaya bersifat politik nasionalis, mengenyahkan orang barat dari wilayah Indonesia, berteman dengan komunis Soviet dan Cina.

    Apa bedanya posisi Indonesia pada masa orde lama (di tahun 1960-an) dengan posisi Iran setelah Revolusi 1979? Tidak jauh berbeda. Masyarakat Iran sangat anti-barat, Amerika Serikat khususnya. Di sisi lain, Iran juga melakukan hal yang sama dengan Indonesia, berteman dengan komunis Rusia dan Cina.

    Motif Soeharto meerbut Irian Jaya dari Belanda bersifat materialistis, yakni setelah melakukan deal politik dengan Freeport, intelijen AS, CIA, pemerintah AS, perancangan G30S/PKI, dan Supersemar.


    1. 200908210620, Sejarah masuknya Irian Barat (Papua) ke dalam wilayah Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI) sudah benar
    2. 200908210620, Sejarah Papua Dalam NKRI Sudah Benar
    3. 20100925, Perjuangan Bangsa Indonesia Merebut Irian Barat/Papua
    4. 201104070529, Sejarah Kabupaten Manokwari
    5. 201110, Meluruskan Sejarah Perjuangan Papua Barat – H. Dr. Subandrio
    6. 201110302210, JFK, Indonesia, CIA and Freeport
    7. 20120430121600, 1 Mei, Sejarah Irian Barat Kembali Dikenang

    http://oase.kompas.com/read/2009/08/21/06205938/Sejarah.Papua.Dalam.NKRI.Sudah.Benar

    Sejarah Papua Dalam NKRI Sudah Benar

    | Jumat, 21 Agustus 2009 | 06:20 WIB


    http://papuapost.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/sejarah-masuknya-irian-barat-papua-ke-dalam-wilayah-negara-kesatuan-republik-indonesia-nkri-sudah-benar/

    Sejarah masuknya Irian Barat (Papua) ke dalam wilayah Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI) sudah benar

    Jumat, 21 Agustus 2009 | 06:20 WIB, Posted on November 5, 2011

    JAYAPURA, KOMPAS.com–Sejarah masuknya Irian Barat (Papua) ke dalam wilayah Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI) sudah benar sehingga tidak perlu dipertanyakan dan diutak-atik lagi.

    Hal tersebut diungkapkan Tokoh Pejuang Papua, Ramses Ohee di Jayapura, Kamis menanggapi sejumlah kalangan yang masih mempersoalkan sejarah masuknya Papua ke dalam wilayah Indonesia yang telah ditetapkan melalui Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat (Pepera) pada 1969 silam.

    Ramses menegaskan, ada pihak-pihak yang sengaja membelokkan sejarah Papua untuk memelihara konflik di Tanah Papua. “Sejarah masuknya Papua ke dalam NKRI sudah benar, hanya saja dibelokkan sejumlah warga tertentu yang kebanyakan generasi muda,” ujarnya. Lebih lanjut dijelaskannya, fakta sejarah menunjukkan keinginan rakyat Papua bergabung dengan Indonesia sudah muncul sejak pelaksanaan Sumpah Pemuda, 28 Oktober 1928.

    “Sayangnya, masih ada yang beranggapan bahwa Sumpah Pemuda tidak dihadiri pemuda Papua. Ini keliru, karena justru sebaliknya, para pemuda Papua hadir dan berikrar bersama pemuda dari daerah lainnya. Ayah saya, Poreu Ohee adalah salah satu pemuda Papua yang hadir pada saat itu,” ujar Ramses.

    Adapun mengenai pihak-pihak yang memutarbalikkan sejarah dan masih menyangkal kenyataan integrasi Papua ke dalam NKRI, Ramses tidak menyalahkan mereka karena minimnya pemahaman atas hal tersebut. Menurutnya, hal yang perlu disadari adalah bahwa keberadaan negara merupakan anugerah Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa sehingga seharusnya disyukuri dengan memberikan kontribusi positif bagi pembangunan di Papua.

    Berdasarkan catatan sejarah, pada 1 Oktober 1962 pemerintah Belanda di Irian Barat menyerahkan wilayah ini kepada Perserikatan Bangsa-bangsa (PBB) melalui United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) hingga 1 Mei 1963. Setelah tanggal tersebut, bendera Belanda diturunkan dan diganti bendera Merah Putih dan bendera PBB.

    Selanjutnya, PBB merancang suatu kesepakatan yang dikenal dengan “New York Agreement” untuk memberikan kesempatan kepada masyarakat Irian Barat melakukan jajak pendapat melalui Pepera pada 1969 yang diwakili 175 orang sebagai utusan dari delapan kabupaten pada masa itu.

    Hasil Pepera menunjukkan rakyat Irian Barat setuju untuk bersatu dengan pemerintah Indonesia.

    Sumber: ANT dan http://oase.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/08/21/06205938/Sejarah.Papua.Dalam.NKRI.Sudah.Benar


    http://widhisejarahblog.blogspot.com/2010/09/perjuangan-bangsa-indonesia-merebut.html

    Perjuangan Bangsa Indonesia Merebut Irian Barat/Papua

    DWI NUGROHO WIDI, Sabtu, 25 September 2010

    1. Latar belakang pengembalian Irian Barat

    Apakah Irian Barat termasuk wilayah Indonesia ? Jawabannya adalah ya!

    Karena apabila ditinjau dari segi politis, bahwa berdasarkan perjanjian international 1896 yang diperjuangkan oleh Prof. Van Vollen Houven (pakar hukum adat Indonesia) di sepakati bahwa ”Indonesia” adalah bekas Hindia Belanda. Sedangkan Irian Barat walaupun dikatakan oleh Belanda secara kesukuan berbeda dengan bangsa Indonesia, tetapi secara sah merupakan wilayah Hindia Belanda.

    Apabila ditinjau dari segi antropologi, bahwa bangsa Indonesia yang asli adalah Homo Wajakensis dan Homo Soloensis yang mempunyai ciri-ciri: kulit hitam, rambut keriting (ras austromelanesoid) yang merupakan ciri ciri suku bangsa Aborigin (Australia) dan ras negroid (Papua).

    Apabila ditinjau dari segi sejarah , bahwa Konferensi Meja Bundar yang dilakukan untuk mengatur penyerahan kedaulatan Indonesia diwarnai dengan usaha licik Belanda yang ingin terus mempertahankan Irian Barat (New Guinea) dengan alasan kesukuan. Akhirnya KMB memutuskan penyelesaian Irian Barat akan ditentukan dalam masa satu tahun setelah penyerahan kedaulatan melalui perundingan antara RIS dengan Kerajaan Belanda.

    Benarkah alasan Belanda mempertahankan Irian Barat karena masalah kesukuan? Ternyata bukan!

    Alasan sebenarnya adalah bahwa pada saat itu Belanda sedang mengadakan eksplorasi / penelitian sumber daya alam di Irian dan berhasil menemukan fakta bahwa di Irian Barat terdapat tambang emas dan uranium terbesar di dunia (sekarang dinamakan Freeport yang merupakan perusahaan asing milik Belanda) yang tidak akan habis di gali selama 100 tahun.

    Belanda tetap mempertahankan Irian Barat sebagai jajahannya, dan memasukan wilayah Irian Barat ke dalam Konstitusi nya pada tanggal 19 Pebruari 1952. Dengan demikian Belanda sendiri telah melanggar isi Round Table Conference yang telah disepakati dengan RIS.

    2. Perjuangan diplomasi; pendekatan diplomasi

    a. Perundingan Bilateral Indonesia Belanda

    Pada tanggal 24 Maret 1950 diselenggarakan Konferensi Tingkat Menteri Uni Belanda – Indonesia. Konferensi memutuskan untuk membentuk suatu komisi yang anggotanya wakil-wakil Indonesia dan Belanda untuk menyelidiki masalah Irian Barat. Hasil kerja Komisi ini harus dilaporkan dalam Konferensi Tingkat Menteri II di Den Haag pada bulan Desember 1950.

    Ternyata pembicaraan dalam tingkat ini tidak menghasilkan penyelesaian masalah Irian Barat. Pertemuan Bilateral Indonesia Belanda berturut-turut diadakan pada tahun 1952 dan 1954, namun hasilnya tetap sama, yaitu Belanda enggan mengembalikan Irian Barat kepada Indonesia sesuai hasil KMB.

    b. Melalui Forum PBB

    Setelah perundingan bilateral yang dilaksanakan pada tahun 1950, 1952 dan 1954 mengalami kegagalan, Indonesia berupaya mengajukan masalah Irian Barat dalam forum PBB. Sidang Umum PBB yang pertama kali membahas masalah Irian Barat dilaksanakan tanggal 10 Desember 1954. Sidang ini gagal untuk mendapatkan 2/3 suara dukungan yang diperlukan untuk mendesak Belanda.

    Indonesia secara bertrurut turut mengajukan lagi sengketa Irian Barat dalam Majelis Umum X tahun 1955, Majelis Umum XI tahun 1956, dan Majelis Umum XII tahun 1957. Tetapi hasil pemungutan suara yang diperoleh tidak dapat memperoleh 2/3 suara yang diperlukan.

    c. Dukungan Negara Negara Asia Afrika (KAA)

    Gagal melalui cara bilateral, Indonesia juga menempuh jalur diplomasi secara regional dengan mencari dukungan dari negara-negara Asia Afrika. Konferensi Asia Afrika yang diadakan di Indonesia tahun 1955 dan dihadiri oleh 29 negara-negara di kawasan Asia Afrika, secara bulat mendukung upaya bangsa Indonesia untuk memperoleh kembali Irian sebagai wilayah yang sah dari RI.

    Namun suara bangsa-bangsa Asia Afrika di dalam forum PBB tetap tidak dapat menarik dukungan internasional dalam sidang Majelis Umum PBB.

    3. Perjuangan dengan konfrontasi politik dan ekonomi

    Kegagalan pemerintah Indonesia untuk mengembalikan Irian Barat baik secara bilateral, Forum PBB dan dukungan Asia Afrika, membuat pemerintah RI menempuh jalan lain pengembalian Irian Barat, yaitu jalur konfrontasi. Berikut ini adalah upaya Indonesia mengembalikan Irian melalui jalur konfrontasi, yang dilakukan secara bertahap.

    a. Pembatalan Uni Indonesia Belanda

    Setelah menempuh jalur diplomasi sejak tahun 1950, 1952 dan 1954, serta melalui forum PBB tahun 1954 gagal untuk mengembalikan Irian Barat kedalam pangkuan RI, pemerintah RI mulai bertindak tegas dengan tidak lagi mengakui Uni Belanda Indonesia yang dibentuk berdasarkan KMB.

    Ini berarti bahwa pembatalan Uni Belanda Indonesia secara sepihak oleh pemerintah RI berarti juga merupakan bentuk pembatalan terhadap isi KMB. Tindakan pemerintah RI ini juga didukung oleh kalangan masyarakat luas, partai-partai dan berbagai organisasi politik, yang menganggap bahwa kemerdekaan RI belum lengkap / sempurna selama Indonesia masih menjadi anggota UNI yang dikepalai oleh Ratu Belanda.

    Pada tanggal 3 Mei 1956 Indonesia membatalkan hubungan Indonesia Belanda, berdasarkan perjanjian KMB. Pembatalan ini dilakukan dengan Undang Undang No.13 tahun 1956 yang menyatakan, bahwa untuk selanjutnya hubungan Indonesia Belanda adalah hubungan yang lazim antara negara yang berdaulat penuh, berdasarkan hukum internasional. Sementara itu hubungan antara kedua negara semakin memburuk, karena:

    1. terlibatnya orang-orang Belanda dalam berbagai pergolakan di Indonesia (APRA, Andi Azis, RMS)
    2. Belanda tetap tidak mau menyerahkan Irian Barat kepada Indonesia.

    b. Pembentukan Pemerintahan Sementara Propinsi Irian Barat di Soasiu (Maluku Utara)

    Sesuai dengan Program Kerja Kabinet, Ali Sastroamidjojo membentuk Propinsi Irian Barat dengan ibu kota Soasiu (Tidore). Pembentukan propinsi itu diresmikan tanggal 17 Agustus 1956. Propinsi ini meliputi wilayah Irian Barat yang masih diduduki Belanda dan daerah Tidore, Oba, Weda, Patrani, serta Wasile di Maluku Utara.

    c. Pemogokan Total Buruh Indonesia

    Sepuluh tahun menempuh jalan damai, tidak menghasilkan apapun. Karena itu, pada tanggal 18 Nopember 1957 dilancarkan aksi-aksi pembebasan Irian Barat di seluruh tanah air. Dalam rapat umum yang diadakan hari itu, segera diikuti pemogokan total oleh buruh-buruh yang bekerja pada perusahaan-perusahaan milik Belanda pada tanggal 2 Desember 1957.

    Pada hari itu juga pemerintah RI mengeluarkan larangan bagi beredarnya semua terbitan dan film yang menggunakan bahasa Belanda. Kemudian KLM dilarang mendarat dan terbang di seluruh wilayah Indonesia.

    d. Nasionalisasi Perusahaan Milik Belanda

    Pada tanggal 3 Desember 1957 semua kegiatan perwakilan konsuler Belanda di Indonesia diminta untuk dihentikan. Kemudian terjadi serentetan aksi pengambil alihan modal perusahaan-perusahaan milik Belanda di Indonesia, yang semula dilakukan secara spontan oleh rakyat dan buruh yang bekerja pada perusahaan-perusahaan Belanda ini.

    Namun kemudian ditampung dan dilakukan secara teratur oleh pemerintah. Pengambilalihan modal perusahaan perusahaan milik Belanda tersebut oleh pemerintah kemudian diatur dengan Peraturan Pemerintah No. 23 tahun 1958.

    e. Pemutusan Hubungan Diplomatik

    Hubungan diplomatik Indonesia – Belanda bertambah tegang dan mencapai puncaknya ketika pemerintah Indonesia memutuskan hubungan diplomatik dengan Belanda. Dalam pidato Presiden yang berjudul ”Jalan Revolusi Kita Bagaikan Malaikat Turun Dari Langit (Jarek)” pada peringatan HUT Proklamasi Kemerdekaan RI ke 15, tanggal 17 Agustus 1960, presiden memaklumkan pemutusan hubungan diplomatik dengan Belanda.

    Tindakan ini merupakan reaksi atas sikap Belanda yang dianggap tidak menghendaki penyelesaian secara damai pengembalian Irian Barat kepada Indonesia. Bahkan, menjelang bulan Agustus 1960, Belanda mengirimkan kapal induk ” Karel Doorman ke Irian melalui Jepang. Disamping meningkatkan armada lautnya, Belanda juga memperkuat armada udaranya dan angkutan darat nya di Irian Barat.

    Karena itulah pemerintah RI mulai menyusun kekuatan bersenjatanya untuk mempersiapkan segala sesuatu kemungkinan. Konfrontasi militer pun dimulai.

    4. Tri Komando Rakyat

    a. Tri Komando Rakyat

    Dalam pidatonya ”Membangun Dunia Kembali” di forum PBB tanggal 30 September 1960, Presiden Soekarno berujar, ”……Kami telah mengadakan perundingan-perundingan bilateral……harapan lenyap, kesadaran hilang, bahkan toleransi pu n mencapai batasnya. Semuanya itu telah habis dan Belanda tidak memberikan alternatif lainnya, kecuali memperkeras sikap kami.”

    Tindakan konfrontasi politik dan ekonomi yang dilancarkan Indonesia ternyata belum mampu memaksa Belanda untuk menyerahkan Irian Barat. Pada bulan April 1961 Belanda membentuk Dewan Papua, bahkan dalam Sidang umum PBB September 1961, Belanda mengumumkan berdirinya Negara Papua. Untuk mempertegas keberadaan Negara Papua, Belanda mendatangkan kapal induk ”Karel Doorman” ke Irian Barat.

    Terdesak oleh persiapan perang Indonesia itu, Belanda dalam sidang Majelis Umum PBB XVI tahun 1961 mengajukan usulan dekolonisasi di Irian Barat, yang dikenal dengan ”Rencana Luns”. Menanggapi rencana licik Belanda tersebut, pada tanggal 19 Desember 1961 bertempat di Yogyakarta, Presiden Soekarno mengumumkan TRIKORA dalam rapat raksasa di alun alun utara Yogyakarta, yang isinya :

    1. Gagalkan berdirinya negara Boneka Papua bentukan Belanda
    2. Kibarkan sang Merah Putih di irtian Jaya tanah air Indonesia
    3. Bersiap melaksanakan mobilisasi umum

    b. Pembentukan Komando Mandala Pembebasan Irian Barat

    Sebagai langkah pertama pelaksanaan Trikora adalah pembentukan suatu komando operasi, yang diberi nama ”Komando Mandala Pembebasan Irian Barat”. Sebagai panglima komando adalah Brigjend. Soeharto yang kermudian pangkatnya dinaikkan menjadi Mayor Jenderal.

    Panglima Komando : Mayjend. Soeharto
    Wakil Panglima I : Kolonel Laut Subono
    Wakil Panglima II : Kolonel Udara Leo Wattimena
    Kepala Staf Gabungan : Kolonel Ahmad Tahir

    Komando Mandala yang bermarkas di Makasar ini mempunyai dua tujuan :

    1. merencanakan, menyiapkan dan melaksanakan operasi militer untuk mengembalikan Irian barat ke dalam kekuasaan Republik Indonesia
    2. mengembangkan situasi militer di wilayah Irian barat sesuai dengan perkembangan perjuangan di bidang diplomasi supaya dalam waktu singkat diciptakan daerah daerah bebas de facto atau unsur pemerintah RI di wilayah Irian Barat

    Dalam upaya melaksanakan tujuan tersebut, Komando Mandala membuat strategi dengan membagi operasi pembebasan Irian Barat menjadi tiga fase, yaitu :

    1. Fase infiltrasi

    Dimulai pada awal Januari tahun 1962 sampai dengan akhir tahun 1962, dengan memasukkan 10 kompi ke sekitar sasaaran tertentu untuk menciptakan daerah bebas de facto.

    2. Fase Eksploitasi

    Dimulai pada awal Januari 1964 sampai dengan akhir tahun 1963, dengan mengadakan serangan terbuka terhadap induk militer lawan, menduduki semua pos pertahanan musuh yang penting.

    3. Fase Konsolidasi

    Dilaksanakan pada tanggal 1 Januari 1964, dengan menegakkan kekuasaan RI secara mutlak di seluruh Irian Barat.

    Sebelum Komando mandala bekerja aktif, unsur militer yang tergabung dalam Motor Boat Torpedo (MTB) telah melakukan penyusupan ke Irian Barat. Namun kedatangan pasukan ini diketahui oleh Belanda, sehingga pecah pertempuran di Laut Arafura. Dalam pertempuran yang sangat dahsyat ini, MTB Macan Tutul berhasil ditenggelamkan oleh Belanda dan mengakibatkan gugurnya komandan MTB Macan Tutul Yoshafat Sudarso (Pahlawan Trikora)

    Sementara itu Presiden Amerika Serikat yang baru saja terpilih John Fitzgerald Kennedy merasa risau dengan perkembangan yang terjadi di Irian Barat. Dukungan Uni Soviet ( PM. Nikita Kruschev ) kepada perjuangan RI untuk mengembalikan Irian Barat dari tangan Belanda, menimbulkan terjadinya ketegangan politik dunia, terutama pada pihak Sekutu (NATO) pimpinan Amerika Serikat yang semula sangat mendukung Belanda sebagai anggota sekutunya.

    Apabila Uni Soviet telah terlibat dan Indonesia terpengaruh kelompok ini, maka akan sangat membahayakan posisi Amerika Serikat di Asia dan dikhawatirkan akan menimbulkan masalah Pasifik Barat Daya. Apabila pecah perang Indonesia dengan Belanda maka Amerika akan berada dalam posisi yang sulit. Amerika Serikat sebagai sekutu Belanda akan di cap sebagai negara pendukung penjajah dan Indonesia akan jatuh dalam pengaruh Uni Soviet.

    Untuk itu, dengan meminjam tangan Sekjend PBB U Than, Kennedy mengirimkan diplomatnya yang bernama Elsworth Bunker untuk mengadakan pendekatan kepada Indonesia – Belanda. Sesuai dengan tugas dari Sekjend PBB ( U Than ), Elsworth Bunker pun mengadakan penelitian masalah ini, dan mengajukan usulan yang dikenal dengan ”Proposal Bunker”. Adapun isi Proposal Bunker tersebut adalah sebagai berikut:

    ”Belanda harus menyerahkan kedaulatan atas Irian barat kepada Indonesia melalui PBB dalam jangka waktu paling lambat dua tahun”

    Usulan ini menimbulkan reaksi :

    1. Dari Indonesia : meminta supaya waktu penyerahan diperpendek
    2. Dari Belanda : setuju melalui PBB, tetapi tetap diserahkan kepada Negara Papua Merdeka

    c. Operasi Jaya Wijaya

    Pelaksanaan Operasi

    1. Maret – Agustus 1962 dilancarkan operasi pendaratan melalui laut dan udara
    2. Rencana serangan terbuka untuk merebut Irian Barat sebagai suatu operasi penentuan, yang diberi nama Operasi Jaya wijaya”. Pelaksanaan operasi adalah sebagai berikut :

    a. Angkatan Laut Mandala dipimpin oleh Kolonel Soedomo membentuk tugas amphibi 17, terdiri dari 7 gugus tugas
    b. Angkatan Udara Mandala membentuk enam kesatuan tempur baru.

    Sementara itu sebelum operasi Jayawijaya dilaksanakan, diadakan perundingan di Markas Besar PBB pada tanggal 15 Agustus 1962, yang menghasilkan suatu resolusi penghentian tembak menembak pada tanggal 18 Agustus 1962.

    5. Persetujuan New York [ New York Agreement ]

    Setelah operasi-operasi infiltrasi mulai mengepung beberapa kota penting di Irian Barat, sadarlah Belanda dan sekutu-sekutunya, bahwa Indonesia tidak main-main untuk merebut kembali Irian Barat. Atas desakan Amerika Serikat, Belanda bersedia menyerahkan irian Barat kepada Indonesia melalui Persetujuan New York / New York Agreement.

    Isi Pokok persetujuan :

    1. Paling lambat 1 Oktober 1962 pemerintahan sementara PBB (UNTEA) akan menerima serah terima pemerintahan dari tangan Belanda dan sejak saat itu bendera merah putih diperbolehkan berkibar di Irian Barat..
    2. Pada tanggal 31 Desember 11962 bendera merah putih berkibar disamping bendera PBB.
    3. Pemulangan anggota anggota sipil dan militer Belanda sudah harus selesai tanggal 1 Mei 1963
    4. Selambat lambatnya tanggal 1 Mei 1963 pemerintah RI secara resmi menerima penyerahan pemerintahan Irian Barat dari tangan PBB
    5. Indonesia harus menerima kewajiban untuk mengadakan Penentuan Pendapat rakyat di Irian Barat, paling lambat sebelum akhir tahun 1969.

    Sesuai dengan perjanjian New York, pada tanggal 1 Mei 1963 berlangsung upacara serah terima Irian Barat dari UNTEA kepada pemerintah RI. Upacara berlangsung di Hollandia (Jayapura). Dalam peristiwa itu bendera PBB diturunkan dan berkibarlah merah putih yang menandai resminya Irian Barat menjadi propinsi ke 26. Nama Irian Barat diubah menjadi Irian Jaya ( sekarang Papua )

    6. Arti penting Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat (Pepera)

    Sebagai salah satu kewajiban pemerintah Republik Indonesia menurut persetujuan New York, adalah pemerintah RI harus mengadakan penentuan pendapat rakyat di Irian Barat paling lambat akhir tahun 1969. Pepera ini untuk menentukan apakah rakyat Irian Barat memilih, ikut RI atau merdeka sendiri. Penentuan pendapat Rakyat akhirnya dilaksanakan pada tanggal 24 Maret sampai dengan 4 Agustus 1969.Mereka diberi dua opsi, yaitu : bergabung dengan RI atau merdeka sendiri.

    Setelah Pepera dilaksanakan, Dewan Musyawarah Pepera mengumumkan bahwa rakyat Irian dengan suara bulat memutuskan Irian Jaya tetap merupakan bagian dari Republik Indoenesia. Hasil ini dibawa Duta Besar Ortiz Sanz untuk dilaporkan dalam sidang umum PBB ke 24 bulan Nopember 1969. Sejak saat itu secara de yure Irian Jaya sah menjadi milik RI.

    Dengan menganalisa fakta-fakta pembebasan Irian Barat sampai kemudian dilaksanakan Pepera, dapat diambil kesimpulan bahwa Pepera mempunyai arti yang sangat penting bagi pemerintah Indonesia, yaitu :

    1. bukti bahwa pemerintah Indonesia dengan merebut Irian Barat melalui konfrontasi bukan merupakan sebuah tindakan aneksasi / penjajahan kepada bangsa lain, karena secara sah dipandang dari segi de facto dan de jure Irian Barat merupakan bagian dari wilayah RI
    2. upaya keras pemerintah Ri merebut kembali Irian Barat bukan merupakan tindakan sepihak, tetapi juga mendapat dukungan dari masyarakat Irian Barat. Terbukti hasil Pepera menyatakan rakyat Irian ingin bergabung dengan Republik Indonesia.


    http://www.manokwarikab.go.id/sejarah

    Sejarah Kabupaten Manokwari

    Thursday, 07 April 2011 05:29

    Catatan sejarah tentang Irian Jaya dimulai pada abad ke VII. Pada abad tersebut diberitakan bahwa para pedagang Sriwijaya telah sampai didaerah ini dan menyatakan bahwa irian Jaya termasuk wilayah Kerajaan Sriwijaya yang mereka beri nama Janggi. Keterangan tersebut dapat perdagangan dan pusat Agama Budha yang berhubungan dengan bangsa Cina dan India.

    Dengan armadanya yang kuat Sriwijaya mengunjungi Maluku dan Irian Jaya untuk memperdagangkan rempah-rempah, wangi-wangian, mutiara dan bulu burung Cenderawasih. Buku tahunan Cina menyebutkan bahwa Raja Sriwijaya yang bernama Maharaja Sriwijaya yang bernama Maharaja Sri Indrawarman telah mengirim utusannya ke Kaisar Cina dan Mempersembahkan bulu-bulu burung yang indah..

    Sementara itu seorang musafir Cina yang bernama Chon You Kwa menulis,bahwa diKepulauan Indonesia sekarang terdapat suatu daerah yang bernama Tungki dan merupakan bagian dari Maluku. Kalau nama Tungki itu dipakai untuk menyebut nama jenggi, maka hal tersebut memperkuat keterangan tentang adanya hubungan Irian Jaya dengan Kerajaan Sriwijaya…

    Didalam Kitab Negara Kertagama yang ditulis oleh Mpu Prapanca ( 1365) Irian Jaya adalah termasuk wilayah Majapahit atau Majapahit kedelapan.

    Didalam syair ke XIV didapat kata-kata Ewanim yang menurut beberapa sarjana bahasa merupakan sebutan untuk Onim, sedangkan Sien untuk Kowiai yang kedua-keduanya terletak di Teluk Bintuni Kabupaten Manokwari. Dan ini membuktikan bahwa suku-suku bangsa di Irian Jaya sejak dahulu sudah mempunyai hubungan dengan suku-suku bangsa di bagian barat, yaitu Kerajaan Ternate, Tidore dan Bacan di Maluku.

    Suatu keterangan yang dapat menunjukkan bahwa Irian Jaya pernah merupakan daerah kekuasaan Sultan Tidore dan Bacan sebagaimana yang dikatakan oleh Koentjaraningrat dan Prof.Dr.Harsya W.Bachtiar dalam penelitiannya yang diungkapkan didalam buku yang berjudul: “Penduduk Irian Barat“ bahwa pertemuan pertama antara orang-orang pribumi Irian Barat dengan orang-orang dari luar daerah terjadi ketika Sultan Tidore berusaha memperluas wilayah Jajahannya.

    Pada abad XVI Pantai Utara sampai Barat daerah Kepala Burung sampai Namatota (Kab.Fak-fak) disebelah Selatan, serta pulau-pulau disekitarnya menjadi daerah kekuasaan Sultan Tidore. Daerah tersebut meliputi Pulau-pulau Raja Ampat wilayah Kabupaten Sorong sekarang, serta daerah Fakfak dan sepanjang pesisir Teluk Bintuni Wilayah Kabupaten Manokwari sekarang.

    Untuk memperlancar jalannya roda Pemerintahan, Sultan Tidore mengangkat empat orang tokoh sebagai raja/korano yang memerintah penduduk di daerah mereka masing-masing atas nama Sultan Tidore.. Hubungan kekuasaan Pemerintahan antara Kerajaan Todore dengan daerah-daerah kekuasaannya, ditandai dengan kewajiban membayar pajak setiap tahunnya kepada kerajaan Tidore, melalui raja-raja atau korano-korano yang diangkat oleh Sultan.

    Bangsa Barat yang mula-mula melihat Pantai Utara adalah dua Orang pelaut Portugis Antonio D. Anease dan Fransisco Sorreano pada Tahun 1511, dalam pelayarannya mencari rempah-rempah, namum mereka tidak mendarat dipantai itu, dia menamakan pulau ini dengan Papua.

    Kata Papua berasal dari bahasa Melayu Kuno “Papuwah“ yang berarti Orang berambut keriting. Orang Pertama yang memberi nama New Guinea pada Pulau Irian adalah Ynigo Ortis de Retes, ketiak ia berlabuh dimuara sungai Memberamo di Pantai Utara Iraian. Ynigo Ortis de Retes tersebut dalam peta abad ke XVI dalam bentuk latin yaitu “Nova Guinea“ dan dalam Peta Belanda: “Nieuw Guinea“.

    Dalam catatan sejarah penamaan Papua dan New Guinea biasa dipakai bersama-sama.

    Nama Irian diusulkan oleh Frans Kaisepo dalam Konfersnsi Malino Pada tahun 1946, dan nama ini kemudian dipakai oleh bangsa Indonesia sampai sekarang.

    Namun sampai abad ke XIX Daerah Irian Jaya masih dianggap sebagai wilayah gelap, karena penduduknya masih kafir dan menyembah kepada berhala-berhala yang telah berakar berabad-abad lamanya.

    Diantara sekian banyak bangsa-bangsa yang pernah datang ke Irian Jaya, bangsa Belandalah yang kemudian berhasil menguasainya. Dengan kedudukannya yang kuat serta system monopolinya di Indonesia, VOC kemuadian berhasil mengusir orang-orang Eropa lainnya dari Irian.

    Usaha Belanda untuk menguasai wilayah Irian Jaya pertama kali kelihatan, ketika diresmikannya pendirian benteng “Fort du Bus“ di Teluk Triton dikaki gunung Lumenciri tepatnaya dikampung Lobo desa Lobo Kecamatan Kaimana Kabupaten fakfak. Pada kesempatan itu Komisaris Pemerintahan Kerajaan Belanda A.J. Van Delden, membacakan suatu pernyataan yang dikenal dengan “Proklamasi Fort du Bus“ pada tanggal 24 Agustus 1898.

    Adapun isi daripada Proklamasi tersebut antara lain bahwa daerah Nieuw Guinea dengan daerah pedalamannya dimulai pada garis 140 BT dipantai Selatan terus kearah Barat, Barat daya dan Utara sampai ke semenanjung Goede Hoop di Pantai Utara kecuali daerah Mansari, Karondefer, Ambarpura dan Amberpon yang dimiliki SultanTidore dinyatakan sebagai milik Belanda.

    Karena pengaruh kekuasaan Belanda lebih kuat dari kesultanan Tidore atas Irian Jaya, maka terpaksa Sultan Tidore menerima kehendak Belanda dengan suatu perjanjian penyerahan wilayah berbentuk “Korte Verklaring“ pada tanggal 3 Juni 1909. Sekalipun sejak tahun 1998 Irian Jaya sudah dianggap sebagai daerah jajahan Belanda, namun kekuasaan yang sesungguhnya baru terwujud pada akhir abad ke XIX.

    Semula Belanda mengabaikan daerah ini, karena dianggap kurang menguntungkan. Tetapi setelah timbul ancaman serta saingan-saingan dari orang-orang Amerika serta orang Eropa lainnya dalam usaha memperluas daerah jajahannya masing-masing mulailah Belanda memusatkan perhatiannya secara sungguh-sungguh kepada daerah Irian Jaya.

    Untuk memantapkan pemerintahan Hindia Belanda diwilayah irian Jaya ini, maka dibentuklah pos pemerintahan yang pertama berkedudukan di Manokwari. Dengan demikian kota Manokwari selain sebagai kota pertama masuknya Injil di Irian Jaya, juga sebagai embrio pertama sejarah pemerintahan diwilayah Iran Jaya, dan selanjutnya ke Fak-Fak.

    Kedua pos pemerintahan tersebut diatas masih langsung dibawahi oleh Keresidenan Maluku yang berkedudukan di Ambon.  Dalam perkembangan selanjutnya, kedua pos pemerintahan tersebut ditingkatkan statusnya menjadi afdeling, yaitu:

    1. Afdeling Noord Nieuw Guinea, (Irian Jaya Bagian Utara) beribu kota di Manokwari yang meliputi wilayah Sorong sampai Jayapura.
    2. Afdeling West Nieuw Guinea (Irian Jaya Bagian Barat) yang beribu kota di Fakfak, meliputi wilayah yang terbentang dari Fakfak sampai Merauke.

    Setelah kemerdekaan Indonesia yang diproklamasikan pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1945 dengan suatu “Wilayah Hukum Negara” yang meliputi bekas wilayah jajahan kerajaan Belanda (Hindia Belanda) maka sejak saat itu secara syah dan diakui oleh dunia luar berdirinya Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia yang berwilayah dari Sabang sampai Merauke.

    Dalam kenyataan sejarah ternyata lain, sebab daerah Irian Jaya ternyata tetap dikuasai oleh pemerintah Belanda, walaupun melalui beberapa kali perjanjian sampai dengan Komprensi Meja Bundar (KMB) pada tahun 1949di Den Haag Negeri Belanda dan sebagai hasilnya Indonesia menerima pengaturan sementara kedudukan Irian Barat (Iran jaya) oleh Belanda untuk jangka waktu satu tahun. Dan ketentuan ini ternyata tak dipenuhi oleh Pemerintah, dimana Irian Jaya tetap tidak dikembalikan kepada Pemerintah Indonesia.

    Namun perjuangan untuk mengembalikan Irian jaya antara tahun 1950 dan 1953 terus dilakukan, terutama melalui meja perundingan secara bilateral dalam lingkungan ikatan Uni Indonesia – Belanda. Setelah usaha-usaha tersebut terbukti membawa hasil, maka sejak tahun 1953 perjuangan Pembebasan Irian Barat mulai dilakukan di forum-forum internasional, terutama PBB dan Forum Solidaritas Asia = Afrika seperti Konferensi Asia-Afrika.

    Usaha-usaha dibidang diplomasi tersebut ternyata tidak membawa hasil, sehingga Pemerintah mulai mengambil sikap yang keras terhadap Belanda. Pembatalan Uni Indonesia – Belanda pada Tahun 1954 diikuti pembatalan secara sepihak persetujuan KMB oleh Indonesia pada tahun 1956.

    Perjuangan untuk mengembalikan Irian Jaya kini didasarkan pada kekuatan rakyat Indonesia sendiri. Dari hasil perjuangan ini pula melahirkan Undang-undang Nomr 15 Tahun 1956, tentang pembentukan Propinsi Irian Barat perjuangan oleh Kabinet Ali Satroamidjojo, Moh.Roem dan Idam Chalik.

    Peresmian pembentukan Propinsi Irian Barat perjuangan dilakukan bertepatan dengan hari Ulang Tahunkemerdekaan RI yang ke 39 pada tanggal 17 Agustus 1956, meliputi wilayah Irian Barat yang masih diduduki Belanda dan Daerah Tidore, Oba, weda, Pa tani, serat Zainal Abdin Syah, yang berkedudukan di Soasiu dan pelantikannya pada tanggal 23 September 1956.

    Pembentukan Propinsi perjuangan ini lebuh dititik beratkan atas dasar administrasi, dan mendapat dukungan dari seluruh rakyat Indonesia. Untuk lebih mempertegas bahwa Irian Barat merupakan bagian dari pada Negara Republik Indonesia, maka diberi kesempatan kepada raktay Irian Barat untuk ikut serta dalam pemerintahan.

    Maka pada bulan Agustus 1956 Pemerintah Republik Indonesia mengangkat 3 Orang anggota DPR sebagai wakil dari rakyat Irian; mereka adalah : Silas Papare, Mohamad Padang dan A.B. Karubuy. Namun demikian Propinsi Irian Barat perjuangan ini, walaupun mempunyai aparatur pemerintahan berupa Gubernur Kepala Daerah, Dewan Pemerintah dan jawatan-jawatan lainnya, tetap tinggal melempen sampai akhir hidupnya.

    Perjuangan untuk mengembalikan Irian Barat belummembawa hasil apa- apa, karena Belanda secara menyolok mendirikan “Dewan Papua“ pada tanggal 5 April 1961 yang kemudian disusul dengan pembentukan “Negara Papua Merdeka“ terlepas dari Negara Republik Indonesia.

    Maka terpaksa pemerintah Indonesia meningkatkan konfrontasinyadalam bidang militer. Hal ini memperlihatkan kesungguhan pemerintah Indonesia untuk membebaskan wilayah Irian Barat dari tangan Belanda dengan kekuatan senjata. Tepat pada tanggal 19 Desember 1961 di Jokyakarta Presiden Soekarno selaku Panglima Tertinggi Angkatan Perang mengeluarkan Trikomando Rakyat (Trikora) yang berbunyi sebagai berikut :

    TRI KOMANDO RAKYAT

    Kami, Presiden/Panglima Tertinggi Angkatan Perang Republik Indonesia dalam rangka politik komfrontasi dengan pihak Belanda untuk membebaskan Irian Barat telah memberikan intruksi kepada Angkatan Bersenjata untuk pada setiap waktu yang kami akan tetapkan menjalankan tugas kewajiban membebaskan Irian Barat Tanah Air Indonesia dari belenggu kolonialisme Belanda..

    Dan kini oleh karena Belanda masih tetap mau melanjutkan kolonialisme ditanah air kita Irian Barat, dengan memecah belah Bangsa dan Tanah Air Indonesia, maka kami perintahkan kepada rakyat Indonesia, yang juga berada didaerah Irian Barat, untuk melaksanakan Tri Komando sebagai berikut :
    Gagalkan pembentukan Negara Papua buatan Belanda Kolonial.
    Kibarkanlah sang Merah Putih di Irian Barat tanah Air Indonesia.
    Bersiaplah untuk mobilisasi umum mempertahankan kemerdekaan dan kesatuan Tanah Air dan Bangsa. Semoga Tuhan Yang Esa memberkati perjuangan Kemerdekaan Indonesia.

    Yokyakarta, 19 Desember 1961

    Presiden/
    Panglima Tertinggi Angkatan Perang Republik Indonesia/
    Pemimpin Besar Revolusi Indonesia/
    Panglima Besar Komando Tertinggi Pembebasan Irian Barat

    S O E K A R N O

    Dalam rangka persiapan pemekaran Wilayah Irian Jaya menjadi beberapa Propinsi pada Pelita IV, Kota Manokwari telah ditetapkan sebagai Pusat Pembantu Gubernur Wilayah II, yang meliputi : Kabupaten Dati II Manokwari Sorong, Teluk Cendrawasih dan Yapen Waropen.

    Dipilihnya Kota Manokwari sebagai Pusat Pembantu Gubernur Wilayah II, karena fakta sejarah dimana Kota Manokwari adalah merupakan kota pertama masuknya Injil di Irian Jaya dan juga merupakan kota Pemerintahan pertama di Irian Jaya.

    Dalam upaya membangun kota Manokwari agar sesuai dengan RIK (Rencana Induk Kota) diupayakan pula untuk mewujudkan kota Manokwari menjadi Kota yang BERSEJARAH (Bersih, Sehat, Jaya, Rapi, Aman dan Hidup).

    Sumber : Monografi Pemerintah Kab.Dati II Manokwari 1990


    http://www.hastamitra.org/2011/10/meluruskan-sejarah-perjuangan-irian.html

    Meluruskan Sejarah Perjuangan Papua Barat – H. Dr. Subandrio

    Buku ini adalah Cetakan ke-II dengan tiras berlipat ganda ketimbang Cetakan Pertama. Selain itu edisi baru ini pun dilengkapi dengan sambutan sangat penting oleh Menko PolSosKam, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono MA dan beberapa sambutan lainnya yang disampaikan pada saat buku ini diluncurkan secara resmi pada tgl. 25 Januari yang baru lalu di Wisma Carakaloka Diklat Deparlu Kebayoran Baru Jakarta.

    Sebelum itu pada kesempatan lain –-segera setelah buku ini selesai dicetak-– dua exemplar masing-masing disampaikan langsung oleh Penulis kepada Presiden Gus Dur dan Wapres Magawati Soekarno­putri. Respons dua pejabat tertinggi negara dan juga sambutan-sambutan pada saat acara peluncuran buku, mendorong dan memantapkan tekad Yayasan Kepada Bangsaku akan kebenaran missi yang kami emban ini.

    Kami sepenuhnya menyadari bahwa masih banyak kewajiban dan tugas penting terbentang di hadapan kita agar kita lebih serius dan lebih tekun lagi menanganinya, seperti misalnya melestarikan cita-cita dan konsep kesatuan dan persatuan bangsa, merampungkan tugas nation and character building yang amat penting sebagaimana selalu didengung-dengunkan oleh Bung Karno, Pembebas dan Bapak Bangsa, terutama di saat-saat seperti sekarang ini.

    Permintaan para pembaca yang demikian melimpah, juga dari toko-toko buku mau pun para pejuang kesatuan dan persatuan bangsa dari lingkungan masyarakat Irian Jaya sendiri, membuktikan bahwa buku ini bukan saja penting isinya, tetapi memang tepat waktu terbitannya pada saat kekuatan berbagai komplotan disintegrasi nasional sedang melancarkan manuver-manuver mereka yang licik dan berbahaya.

    Pada Cetakan Pertama buku ini, kami tanpa ragu telah menyatakan: YKB dengan tegas mendukung perjuangan melawan ketidakadilan sentralisme Jakarta yang dimanifestasikan oleh keserakahan Keluarga Cendana dan para kroninya yang menganggap Irian Barat tidak lain merupakan ladang untuk memperkaya diri sejadi-jadinya.

    Ketidakadilan seperti itu mutlak harus dihentikan, tetapi Yayasan Kepada Bangsaku akan kukuh mempertahankan Persatuan dan Kesatuan Indonesia karena tidak bisa mentolerir ambisi-ambisi perorangan yang ingin muncul ke depan sebagai pemimpin dengan memanipulasi aspirasi rakyat Papua berdalih me­lawan ketidakadilan.

    Oleh karena itu kami sungguh berbesar hati dan gembira mendengar kata-kata Menko Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (lihat Lampiran, hal. 247, dst.) yang penuh respek berbicara tentang keberhasilan perjuangan Bung Karno dan The Founding Fathers R.I. dalam membebaskan dan mewujudkan persatuan dan kesatuan bangsa dan wilayah Indonesia.

    Dengan menempatkan diri sebagai generasi penerus, sekarang Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dengan tegas menganggap sebagai kewajiban di pundak generasinya untuk meng­amankan, memelihara dan merampungkan semua hasil perjuangan yang diwariskan oleh para Founding Fathers kita itu.

    Apa yang beliau kemukakan itu sekarang menjadi sangat relevan, karena berbagai manuver konspirasi gerakan separatis kini sedang berkecamuk untuk menggoyang integritas wilayah tanah air kita. Kaum Kolonial mana pun perlu diperingatkan supaya jangan coba-coba bermain api di Irian Barat dengan memanfaatkan kesederhanaan dan kejujuran rakyat Irian Jaya yang dulu dijajah Belanda.

    Sebab, jika keadaan menuntut, rakyat Indonesia tidak akan sangsi menghidupkan Trikora edisi kedua, yang pada tahun 1963 telah berhasil membebaskan Irian Barat dari cengkeraman kolonial Belanda.

    Akhirnya ingin kami kemukakan di sini, bahwa peluncuran buku sejarah perjuangan Irian Barat ini bukan saja sepenuhnya sejalan dengan kondisi situasional di mana kita sekarang sedang berada, akan tetapi juga sepenuhnya berada dalam konteks pada saat segenap nasion menyambut Peringatan Seabad Bung Karno pada 6 Juni 2001, pemimpin bangsa yang berdiri di baris paling depan dalam perjuangan pemulihan Irian Barat ke dalam wilayah kesatuan Republik Indonesia.

    Buku H. Dr. Subandrio
    Jakarta, 25 Januari 2001.
    Penerbit  Yayasan Kepada Bangsaku
    H. Amin Aryoso, SH
    Ketua


    Catatan YKB

    pada Cetakan Pertama

    Ada tiga alasan mengapa buku ini diterbitkan. Alasan pertama, karena ada permintaan dari Dr. Subandrio, mantan menteri luar negeri dan wakil perdana menteri I pada kabinet akhir pemerintahan Soekarno. Ia ditangkap oleh Soeharto, diadili dan dijatuhi hukuman mati, karena dinyatakan “terbukti” terlibat Gerakan 30 September 1965 yang dipimpin oleh Letkol Untung Samsuri dari Resimen Tjakrabirawa.

    Oleh suatu perubahan kondisi politik, hukumannya diubah menjadi seumur hidup, kemudian mendapat grasi, dan dibebaskan setelah 30 tahun menjadi penghuni penjara. G30S sendiri dikatakan oleh rezim Soeharto sebagai gerakan Partai Komunis Indonesia bersama kroninya yang hendak melakukan coup d’etat terhadap kekuasaan Presiden Soekarno.

    Itulah yang kita namakan manipulasi sejarah dan masih saja dikunyah-kunyah sampai sekarang, termasuk di dalamnya nama Dr. Subandrio disebut sebagai tokoh yang terlibat. Sebenarnya Dr. Subandrio adalah orang yang mengingatkan Bung Karno untuk berhati-hati ketika tiga jendral atas nama Jendral Suharto datang ke Bogor pada bulan Maret 1966 yang hasilnya kemudian semua kita kenal dalam sejarah dengan apa yang dinamakan “supersemar” atau Surat Perintah Sebelas Maret.

    Menurut keterangan Ibu Hartini Soekarno, waperdam Dr. Leimena yang juga berada di istana Bogor ketika diminta pendapatnya oleh Bung Karno sebelum menandatangani “supersemar” mengatakan bahwa ia sepenuhnya mendukung apa pun keputusan yang diambil oleh Bung Karno.

    Waperdam Chairul Saleh yang menyadari betul implikasi dari draft supersemar itu, berpendapat bahwa Bung Karno sebaiknya berfikir matang dalam menghadapi situasi yang sangat menentukan itu. Chaerul Saleh bahkan menyarankan agar Bung Karno sebelum mengambil suatu keputusan, sebaiknya terlebih dulu bersembahyang istikharoh untuk mendapatkan petunjuk dari Yang Maha Kuasa.

    Hanya waperdam Dr. Subandrio berkata tegas dalam bahasa Belanda bercampur Inggris: “Als u deze verklaring tekent, dan valt u in a trap.” (Bila bapak menandata-tangani pernyataan itu, maka bapak akan kejeblos dalam perangkap). Benar juga, “supersemar” bukan saja digunakan Soeharto untuk menghukum mati Subandrio, tapi juga sebagai kendaraan untuk menjatuhkan Presiden Soekarno dan merebut kekuasaannya.

    Tapi kemudian, dari berbagai hasil penelitian dan kesaksian, sejarah yang ditulis mengenai G30S menimbulkan banyak kesangsian. Terakhir, keterangan Letjen (Purn.) Kemal Idris kepada pers tatkala melayat Jenderal Besar A.H. Nasution yang meninggal 5 September 2000, menyatakan penyesalannya, mengapa Jendral Soeharto sebagai panglima KOSTRAD saat meletusnya G30S, setelah dua kali dilapori oleh Kol. A. Latief, komandan Brigade Infantri I KODAM V Jaya saat-saat hendak dimulainya gerakan, ia sama sekali tidak mengambil langkah apa pun untuk mencegah gerakan tersebut. Jadi, siapa yang mendukung G30S?

    Ketika Dr. Subandrio sudah menjalani hidup dalam penjara ± 20 tahun, setelah hukumannya diubah dari hukuman mati menjadi seumur hidup, kemudian menjadi 30 tahun, ia minta kepada saya menjadi penasehat hukumnya untuk mengupayakan grasi baginya dan sekaligus usaha rehabilitasi.

    Saya katakan kepadanya bahwa grasi ada kemungkinan dan terbuka upaya hukumnya, tapi rehabilitasi jangan diharapkan akan diberikan oleh Soeharto. Untuk rehabilitasi, saya usulkan kepadanya supaya menulis saja memoar yang mengungkapkan apa sebenarnya G30S itu karena tentu ia sangat memahami, dan bagaimana posisi Dr. Subandrio di dalamnya.

    Usul saya itu beralasan, karena diperkuat oleh pengungkapan Bung Karno 4 bulan sebelum meletusnya G30S, di mana Presiden pada tanggal 28 Mei 1965, ketika memberikan amanat pada rapat panglima TNI/AD seluruh Indonesia, beliau mengungkapkan adanya rencana dari musuh Indonesia hendak membunuh tiga tokoh terpenting di Indonesia, yaitu Bung Karno, A. Yani dan Dr. Subandrio.

    Fakta menunjukkan bahwa Yani dibunuh pada 1 Oktober 1965 oleh G30S, Dr. Subandrio dijatuhi hukuman mati dan Bung Karno ditahan dalam keadaan sakit parah tanpa pengobatan yang wajar, sampai meninggal dunia dalam tahanan rezim orde baru.

    Oleh karena itu Dr. Subandrio yang terhindar dari menjalani hukuman mati, patut menulis memoar, sebab ia adalah saksi sejarah yang masih hidup dan mengerti seluk-beluk G30S karena jabatannya terutama sekali sebagai Kepala Badan Pusat Inteligen (BPI). Dengan menulis memoarnya, ia dapat merehabilitasi nama baiknya dengan cara membuktikan bahwa ia hanya dilibatkan dan bukan terlibat. Buku ini kita harapkan menjadi awal penulisan untuk membeberkan pembuktian tersebut.

    Alasan kedua, tulisan Dr. Subandrio mengenai perjuangan pembebasan Irian Barat yang ada di tangan pembaca sekarang ini, disambut hangat oleh Pak Roeslan, bahkan memberikan kesannya yang mendalam sebagai pengantar penerbitan buku ini, menganalisis tajam serta mengevaluasinya.

    Kita semua mengetahui bahwa Dr. Subandrio dan Dr. H. Roeslan Abdulgani di waktu yang lalu berseberangan pandangan mengenai banyak soal, sampai-sampai menimbulkan kesan adanya permusuhan pribadi antara kedua tokoh itu.

    Tetapi setelah melewati pasang surutnya situasi politik dalam perjalanan hidup dan perjuangan, muncul kearifan yang membuat keduanya menemukan titik temu, yang kemudian mengakhiri perseteruan yang mungkin hanya akibat kesalahfahaman di waktu yang lalu, dan ditutup dengan seremoni rangkul-peluk-cium-air mata yang disaksikan oleh Mh. Isnaeni.

    Buku ini berhasil mempertemukan kedua tokoh yang pernah berseteru itu. Alhamdulillah!

    Alasan ketiga, oleh keserakahan Soeharto dengan anak-anak dan para kroninya menguras kekayaan alam Irian Barat selama 30 tahun dan membiarkan penduduk asli terlantar dan hidup seperti di jaman batu, berpadu dengan kepentingan asing yang tetap ingin menguasai sumber alam Irian Barat yang kaya raya,

    menyebabkan kekecewaan yang mendalam bagi saudara-saudara kita penduduk asli, yang segera dimanfaatkan oleh kaum separatis yang didukung oleh kekuatan asing, dengan membentuk satu gerakan yang mengatasnamakan penduduk asli hendak memisahkan diri dari Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia dan mendirikan negara sendiri yang mereka sebut Papua Merdeka.

    Sejarah Irian Barat dan perjuangan rakyatnya diputarbalik, dirancang sesuai dengan kepentingan asing yang mendukungnya, menciptakan pembenaran tuntutan tersebut, dengan berbagai argumentasi yang dibuat-buat.

    Buku ini berusaha meluruskan sejarah perjuangan besar membebaskan Irian Barat dari kolonisasi Belanda, dengan memberikan gambaran yang jelas bagaimana seluruh rakyat Indonesia, tidak terkecuali penduduk asli Irian Barat, sipil maupun militernya, ambil bagian bersama-sama dalam perjuangan besar itu, sehingga hampir saja memicu sengketa internasional yang menyeret kepada peperangan, jika Belanda tidak segera mundur dari Irian Barat.

    Pengalaman Dr. Subandrio melaksanakan perjuangan diplomasi merebut Irian Barat, sehingga perang terbuka dapat dihindarkan 38 tahun yang lalu, sekarang menjadi aktual untuk dicermati kembali, justru pada saat di mana muncul gerakan separatis yang mengkhianati perjuangan dan pengorbanan rakyat Irian Barat sendiri dalam membebaskan wilayahnya bersama seluruh rakyat Indonesia dari cengkraman Belanda.

    Akhir-akhir ini apa yang menamakan diri “Dewan Papua” menuntut tanggungjawab moral Belanda yang telah menyerahkan Irian Barat kepada Indonesia, yang katanya tidak sesuai dengan keinginan rakyat Irian sendiri. Dewan Papua memang dibentuk oleh Belanda di tengah-tengah menghebatnya perjuangan pembebasan Irian Barat.

    Dewan itu sendiri ketua dan sekretarisnya adalah orang Belanda, sedang anggota-anggotanya orang-orang Irian boneka Belanda. Hal ini sudah dikemukakan oleh Dr. Subandrio dalam pidatonya di Sidang Majelis Umum PBB tanggal 9 Oktober 1961 tatkala memperdebatkan agenda Irian Barat, di mana dikatakan bahwa Dewan Papua dengan mengatas-namakan rakyat Irian Barat menuntut hak menentukan nasib sendiri.

    Padahal hak menentukan nasib sendiri itu sudah tercakup dalam Proklamasi 17 Agustus 1945, di mana rakyat yang dijajah Belanda – termasuk Irian Barat menyatakan diri sebagai bagian yang tak terpisahkan dari Republik Indonesia.

    Hanya karena Persetujuan KMB yang kompromistis menyisakan masalah Irian Barat sebagai sengketa yang akan dirundingkan setahun kemudian, menyebabkan Belanda terus memperkuat pertahanan militernya di sana, dan baru dilepaskannya setelah dipaksa dengan Operasi Trikora.

    Penyerahan Irian Barat kepada Indonesia pada tanggal 1 Mei 1963, diakui oleh seluruh dunia internasionasl dan disahkan oleh PBB. Jadi, sama sekali tidak masuk akal tuntutan gerakan separatis Papua yang pura-pura memperingatkan Belanda supaya bertanggungjawab moral atas penyerahan Irian Barat kepada Republik Indonesia.

    Artinya Dewan Papua menuntut supaya Belanda menarik kembali persetujuannya atas penyerahan Irian Barat kepada Indonesia. Padahal, justru yang semestinya dituntut ialah dosa politik dan kemanusiaan yang dijalankan imperialis Belanda di Indonesia selama 300 tahun lebih.

    Tetapi tuntutan seperti itu sudah jelas tidak bisa diharapkan dari Dewan Papua yang eksistensinya seenaknya saja mengatasnamakan rakyat Papua. Kita perlu pertanyakan : rakyat Papua yang mana?

    YKB dengan tegas mendukung perjuangan melawan ketidakadilan sentralisme Jakarta yang dimanifestasikan dengan keserakahan Keluarga Cendana dan para kroninya yang menganggap Irian Barat tidak lain merupakan ladang untuk memperkaya diri sejadi-jadinya.

    Ketidakadilan seperti itu mutlak harus dihentikan, tetapi Yayasan Kepada Bangsaku akan kukuh mempertahankan Persatuan dan Kesatuan Indonesia – karena tidak bisa mentolerir ambisi-ambisi perorangan yang ingin muncul ke depan sebagai pemimpin dengan memanipulasi aspirasi rakyat Papua berdalih melawan ketidakadilan.

    Yayasan Kepada Bangsaku mengucapkan terimakasih kepada sdr. A. Karim D.P. dan sdr. Mh. Isnaeni yang dengan cermat telah menyunting catatan-catatan Dr. Subandrio sehingga menjadi suatu buku yang utuh untuk dapat dijadikan rujukan dalam kita mengungkap sejarah perjuangan pengembalian Irian Barat kembali ke pangkuan Ibu Pertiwi.

    Akhirnya, untuk penyelesaian penerbitan buku ini, YKB mencatat bantuan sangat berarti dari Bapak Enny Soeprapto, anggota Panitia Penulisan Sejarah diplomasi Republik Indonesia dari Departemen Luar Negeri RI, Bapak Kartono Kadri SH, mantan sekretaris perwakilan RI semasa UNTEA di Hollandia-Irian Barat, Bapak Jaka A. Singgih, anggota MPR-RI yang telah melengkapi buku ini dengan berbagai dokumen berharga, dan redaksi Hasta Mitra yang menata design buku sampai kepada pencetakannya.

    Untuk semua bantuan itu, penerbit mengucapkan banyak terima kasih.

    Jakarta, 10 November 2000
    Penerbit: Yayasan Kepada Bangsaku
    Ketua


    Penganalisaan dan Penilaian

    Oleh : Dr. H. Roeslan Abdulgani

    Karya Dr. Subandrio tentang perjuangan pembebasan Irian Barat ini sangat menarik dan sangat penting. Ia berisikan suatu pengungkapan tentang motivasi dan tujuan perjuangan pembebasan Irian-Barat dalam periode sekitar tahun 1959-1963. Yaitu dalam suatu periode historis.

    Di mana Jiwa Nasionalisme dan Patriotisme kita sedang me­nyala-nyala dengan keberanian herois untuk melawan kolonialisme Belanda yang masih mencengkeram Irian Barat. Dan juga dalam periode di mana secara global dan regional suasana Perang Dingin masih membara di seluruh dunia, termasuk di kawasan Asia-Pasifik dan Asia-Tenggara, dengan wilayah Irian Barat di dalamnya.

    Irian Barat sendiri luasnya adalah sekitar 3 kali lebih dari Pulau Jawa, dan berada di ambang pintu gerbang Samudera Pasifik yang geografis-militer-politis sangat vital sekali. Selain itu maka bumi Irian-Barat memiliki – sumber kekayaan alam yang sangat bervariasi dan dalam kualitas dan kuantitas sangat potensial.

    Terdapat di bumi Irian Barat antara lain berbagai mineral seperti timah, -– emas, platinum, bijih-besi, batubara, minyak, kaolin dan juga uranium. Kekayaan hutan dan lautnya sangat besar sekali. Dapat dipahami bahwa Irian Barat mempunyai nilai-ekonomis yang sangat vital, di samping nilai-strategis-militernya.

    Yang menjadi arsitek ulung dalam strategi merebut Irian Barat adalah Bung Karno, Proklamator Kemerdekaan dan Presiden Republik Indonesia pertama. Beliau mengkombinasikan daya-politik-diplomasi kita dengan daya-militer-maritim-darat-udara kita; sambil memanfaatkan adanya rivalitas Amerika-Russia untuk mengisolir kekuatan kolonialisme Belanda.

    Bila garis strategi perjuangan pembebasan Irian Barat ini berada di tangan Presiden Soekarno, maka garis taktiknya untuk sebagian besar berada di tangan Menlu Su­bandrio dan para pembantunya antara lain Mr. Sujarwo Tjon­dronegoro. Tidak dapat disangkal bahwa dalam perjuangan pembebasan Irian Barat ini peran dan sumbangan Menlu Subandrio sangat besar.

    Karena itu bersyukurlah kita bahwa beliau dalam usia senjanya masih dapat mengungkapkan seluk-beluk perjuangan pembebasan Irian Barat ini dengan jelas sekali. Karya ini mengandung nilai-pendidikan, khususnya bagi generasi muda para diplomat kita de­wasa ini; untuk dapat mengambil pelajaran yang sangat bernilai dan bermutu.

    Kemudian perlu kiranya di sini dikemukakan cara penyelesaian pertikaian Belanda-Indonesia mengenai Irian Barat melalui PBB. Setelah masalah Irian Barat ini sejak tahun 1954-1957 diajukan oleh Indonesia ke forum PBB tanpa hasil, maka Indonesia menempuh jalan lain, yaitu dengan menghimpun segala kekuatan untuk usaha pembebasan daerah wilayah Irian Barat.

    Pada tahun 1961 Pemerintah Belanda dengan memutar-balikkan isi dan jiwa Resolusi Majelis Umum PBB No.1514 (XV) tentang Dekolonisasi hendak menyerahkan Irian Barat kepada PBB untuk dipersiapkan sebagai daerah perwalian. Ini berarti hendak memperalat PBB sebagai instrumen separatisme.

    Setelah rencana Belanda ini gagal karena tidak memperoleh mayoritas yang diperlukan, berkat kegigihan diplomasi Menlu Su­bandrio, maka pada akhir tahun 1962 itu Presiden Soekarno mencanangkan politik TRIKORA, yaitu suatu aksi pembebasan dengan persiapan-persiapan militer di bawah perlindungan diplomasi.

    Politik Trikora ini mengakibatkan suatu hasil yang cukup lumayan, yaitu dalam bentuk Perjanjian New York antara Belanda-Indonesia ditandatangani di Markas Besar PBB pada tanggal 15 Agustus 1962, dan diajukan ke muka Majelis Umum PBB pada tanggal 21 September 1962.

    Dengan suara 88 pro dan 15 abstain maka pada tanggal 21 September itu juga Majelis Umum PBB mencatat adanya Perjanjian Bilateral tersebut, dan memperkenankan Sekjen PBB menjalankan tugasnya sesuai Perjanjian tersebut. Perjanjian New York ini adalah unik sekali. Karena untuk pertama kali PBB menerima administrasi suatu daerah yang luas sekali.

    Dan juga karena perjanjian New York ini pada hakekatnya adalah suatu “peace-keeping operation” yang tidak membawa beban finansiil kepada PBB. Sebab segala beaya operasi pemeliharaan perdamaian ini dibebankan kepada Pemerintah Belanda dan Pemerintah Indonesia, sebagai pihak-pihak yang langsung membuat perjanjian bilateral ini.

    PBB mengenal “peace-keeping operation” lainnya, yaitu seperti di Terusan Suez, di Congo, di Cyprus, di perbatasan India-Pakistan, di Republik Dominika, di Yemen dan sebagainya. Assistensi PBB dalam penyerahan Irian Barat dari tangan Belanda ke tangan Indonesia pula merupakan suatu “peace-keeping operation”.

    Sama dengan “peace-keeping operation” di Yemen yang beayanya dibayar oleh Saudi Arabia dan Republik Arab Persatuan, maka dalam soal Irian Barat ini pun beaya dipikul bersama oleh Belanda dan Indonesia. Adapun “peace-keeping operations” lainnya menjadi beban pembeayaan PBB, yang kemudian menimbulkan berbagai pertikaian konstitusional mengenai siapa yang harus membayarnya.

    Akibatnya ialah krisis keuangan dalam administrasi PBB sendiri, bersumber pada pertentang­an politik. Soviet Uni dan Prancis tidak bersedia membayar beaya “peace-keeping operations” yang tidak ditentukan oleh Dewan Keamanan. Mereka tidak mengakui wewenang Majelis Umum untuk menentukan “peace-keeping operations”.

    Karenanya maka Soviet Uni dan Prancis tetap menunggak dalam kontribusi pembeayaan operasi di Congo dan sebagainya. Jelaslah bahwa dalam soal penyelesaian Irian Barat ini pun Indonesia telah menyumbangkan suatu cara tertentu di muka forum PBB yang khusus dan khas.

    Sudah barang tentu hal ini tidak semata-mata disebabkan karena faktor Indonesia saja. Faktor kekuatiran Amerika Serikat di bawah Kepresidenan Kennedy bahwa Trikora akan dapat menyeret Amerika Serikat dan Soviet/RRT ke arah konfrontasi langsung di Pasifik Barat-Daya dengan masing-masing memberi “backing” kepada Belanda dan Indonesia adalah suatu faktor yang tidak dapat kita abaikan sama sekali. Faktor ini mendorong juga ke arah cara penyelesaian seperti tercermin dalam Perjanjian New York.

    Demikian juga keragu-raguan dari pihak Belanda bahwa mereka dalam hati kecilnya tidak berdaya dan tidak mungkin lagi menjalankan peperangan kolonial baru, adalah faktor yang tidak boleh kita kesampingkan. Namun faktor yang terbesar ialah bahwa Indonesia dengan segala tekad-bulatnya akhirnya masih bersedia memasuki suatu kompromis.

    Dan inilah sebenarnya faktor yang menentukan. Seperti kita ketahui, maka kompromis itu berupa kesediaan Indonesia untuk melaksanakan suatu “act of free choice” atas dasar musyawarah bagi penduduk Irian Barat, dengan “advice, assistance and participation” (nasehat, bantuan dan partisipasi) dari wakil Sekjen U Thant.

    Adapun tanggung-jawab tentang pelaksanaan itu berada mutlak di tangan Pemerintah Indonesia, yang sejak 1 Mei 1963 mengoper kekuasaan defacto Irian Barat dari tangan Belanda. Setelah “act of free choice” atas dasar musyawarah itu selesai dilaksanakan pada bulan Juli-Agustus 1969,

    dengan hasil bahwa penduduk Irian Barat ingin tetap dalam Republik Indonesia, maka Sidang Pleno dari Majelis Umum PBB pada  tanggal 19 November 1969 telah “take note” (mencatat) hasil tersebut dengan perbandingan suara 84 pro, 30 abstain dan 0 anti.

    Usaha beberapa negara Afrika dan Caribia di bawah pimpinan Ghana untuk meminta diulangi kembali “act of free choice” tersebut dengan disesuaikan kepada “international practice” sampai pada tahun 1975, ditolak dengan 60 suara anti, 15 pro (Barbados, Central African Republic, Dahomey, Gabon, Ghana, Guyana, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Sierra Lione, Togo, Trinidad, dan Tobago, Uganda, Tanzania, Zambia), 39 abstain.

    Saya sendiri menyaksikan manuver politik yang tidak sehat dari Ghana itu, yang di belakangnya ada bisikan beracun dari Delegasi Belanda. Nampaknya Belanda masih bernafsu menguasai Irian Barat. Saya sendiri pada waktu itu Duibes R.I. di PBB tahun 1967–1971, dan dengan bantuan Mr. Sujarwo Tjondronegoro dapat menggagalkan niat Ghana-Belanda tersebut.

    Perjanjian New York merupakan suatu model baru untuk menyelesaikan suatu pertikaian yang lama dan mendalam antara Kolonialisme dan nasionalisme, di mana PBB tidak dibebani dengan beaya keuangannya; hanya sekedar diminta darinya nasehat, assistensi dan perantaraan untuk memberi pengayoman kepada suatu perjanjian bilateral yang mengelakkan peperangan dan memelihara perdamaian.

    Karenanya maka Perjanjian New York ini benar-benar merupakan suatu contoh yang unik sekali, dan memperkaya PBB dengan kemungkinan-kemungkinan baru untuk memelihara perdamaian.

    Sebagai penutup, sekali lagi ingin saya kemukakan penghargaan saya atas karya Dr. Subandrio ini. Mudah-mudahan ia menjadi kajian dan pelajaran bagi Generasi Muda kita, khususnya yang membaktikan dirinya kepada bidang luar negeri dan diplomasi.

    Jakarta, Noveber 2000.
    DR. H. Roeslan Abdulgani


    Sambutan Menko Polsoskam

    Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono MA

    Buku ini terbit pada saat yang tepat, ketika Nasionalisme dan patriotisme bangsa Indonesia tengah diuji kembali. Juga ketika integrasi nasional dan keutuhan teritorial Indonesia sedang menghadapi permasalahan dan tantangan serius, termasuk munculnya kembali gerakan separatisme di Irian Jaya.

    Kehadiran buku ini, yang di dalamnya terkandung nafas dan jiwa perjuangan bangsa, yang dengan gamblang juga menjelaskan proses dan koteks sejarah pembebasan Irian Barat, yang penuh dengan idealisme, determinisme, kepiawaian diplomasi dan sekaligus disertai dengan langkah-langkah militer, benar-benar memberikan inspirasi dan motivasi bagi kami semua, generasi penerus, untuk mampu menyelesaikan permasalahan Irian Jaya secara arif, tepat dan realistik.

    Nilai dan manfaat buku ini makin bertambah ketika ditulis dan dituturkan sendiri oleh Bpk. DR. Subandrio, sebagai salah satu pelaku sejarah yang memiliki peran yang amat penting, serta diberikan pengantar oleh Bpk. Dr. Roeslan Abdulgani yang juga terlibat langsung dalam berbagai langkah diplomasi dan pemerintah negara waktu itu.

    Di sinilah letak kekuatan tema dan judul yang dipilih oleh buku ini, yaitu “pelurusan sejarah” dalam perjuangan merebut kembali Irian Barat ke pangkuan Republik Indonesia. Alangkah bersyukur dan beruntungnya bangsa Indonesia, ketika ada upaya dari sekelompok orang untuk mengaburkan, membengkokkan dan memanipulasi fakta sejarah,

    tentu dengan ulasan dan tafsir yang subyektif, untuk tujuan politik pemisahan dari keutuhan wilayah Indonesia, para sesepuh dan pelaku sejarah masih memiliki kepedulian dan komitmen yang tinggi untuk menjelaskan sesuatu yang benar dan faktual, sebagai pedoman dan rujukan resmi bagi bangsa Indonesia, bahkan bagi masyarakat dunia.

    Hal ini tentu akan menguatkan keyakinan kita semua atas kebenaran sejarah, dan sekaligus meningkatkan ketegaran kita untuk menolak berbagai upaya untuk memanipulasi dan mendistorsi peristiwa dan proses sejarah yang sesungguhnya.

    Jika kita menyimak secara cermat dan seksama atas penuturan Bapak DR. Subandrio, terbayang dan terasakan bagi kita semua, alot dan tidak mudahnya langkah-langkah diplomasi kita waktu itu.

    Banyak nilai dan pelajaran yang dapat diangkat dari episode sejarah yang penting itu, di antaranya keteguhan pada prinsip di satu sisi, dengan keluwesan dan kepiawaian bernegosiasi di sisi yang lain dalam langkah-langkah diplomasi.

    Ada pula pihak-pihak yang amat berpengaruh dalam percaturan global waktu itu, seperti Amerika Serikat, Uni Sovyet, dan bahkan Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa, yang juga memerlukan pendekatan dan komunikasi politik yang tepat dan konstruktif, tentu saja sesuai dengan kepentingan nasional Indonesia.

    Dan yang tidak kalah penting adalah betapa tingginya determinasi dan kualitas kepemimpinan Presiden Soekarno yang didukung oleh seluruh rakyat Indonesia yang benar-benar bersatu, dan yang dipelopori oleh para prajurit dan sukarelawan bersenjata untuk siap berkorban jiwa dan raga demi menjaga keutuhan negara Indonesia, dan demi tetap berkibarnya Sang Merah Putih di bumi Irian Jaya.

    Pelajaran berharga lain yang dapat kita petik adalah “war and diplomacy” sering harus berjalan bersama. Negosiasi atau “coercive diplomacy” memerlukan kekuatan militer sebagai posisi tawar. Itulah yang berlangsung dalam dinamika diplomasi kita waktu itu.

    Dalam kancah diplomasi sendiri, kita simak interaksi yang menarik antara para tokoh penting misalnya antara Presiden Soekarno dengan Presiden Kennedy, antara Menteri Luar Negeri Subandrio dengan Menteri Luar Negeri Belanda Luns dan Menteri Luar Negeri Amerika Serikat Dean Rusk.

    Ada tokoh Juanda, Adam Malik, Sudjarwo, U Thant, De Quay, Howard Jones, Van Rooyen, Bunker, dan Menzies. Dalam arena militer ada tokoh Jenderal Nasution, Jenderal Soeharto, dan Komodor Yos Sudarso. Dan tentunya masih banyak lagi pelaku-pelaku penting yang menjadi bagian abadi dalam sejarah perjuangan Irian Barat tersebut.

    Semua itu tentu bukan hanya kronologi sejarah semata, tetapi sesungguhnya adalah potret dan pancaran kebesaran sebuah bangsa, yang karena kuatnya kehendak untuk bersatu dan untuk melangkah bersama, maka misi nasional yang amat berat dan penuh tantangan itu akhirnya dapat dicapai dengan baik.

    Inilah makna, nilai dan pelajaran terbesar kisah perjuangan pembebasan Irian Barat. Nilai dan idealisme ini pulalah yang harus kita hidupkan kembali dewasa ini, tentu dengan format dan konteks yang berbeda.

    38 tahun telah kita lalui, ketika Sang Merah Putih sebagai satu-satunya bendera nasional dapat dikibarkan dengan megahnya di Irian Jaya pada tanggal 1 Mei 1963. Meskipun kami, para generasi penerus, amat bersyukur kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Esa dan

    amat berterima kasih atas jasa, pengabdian dan perjuangan para pemimpin Republik dan para pejuang pembebasan Irian Barat, yang telah kembali mempersatukan wilayah Irian Jaya ke pangkuan Republik Indonesia, permasalahan Irian Barat masih tersisa dan masih kami hadapi dewasa ini.

    Tentu ini terutama merupakan tugas dan tanggung jawab generasi sekarang untuk mampu menyelesaikan permasalahan Irian Jaya ini dengan sebaik-baiknya. Kami sadar dan amat mengerti bahwa setiap generasi memiliki konteks sejarah dan tantangannya sendiri. Insya Allah tugas ini akan dapat kami emban dengan penuh keyakinan bahwa tugas ini merupakan kontrak kesetiaan dan pengabdian kami kepada negara dan bangsa.

    Kita semua menyadari bahwa dalam lingkungan Indonesia yang makin maju dan modern, dalam alam dunia yang makin mengglobal dan menganut nilai-nilai yang bersifat universal, Irian Jaya dan saudara-saudara yang tinggal di bumi tercinta itu, juga makin mendambakan taburan keadilan, kebebasan, kehormatan dan kesejahteraan, sebagaimana layaknya saudara-saudara sebangsa dan setanah airnya yang telah menikmati kualitas kehidupan seperti itu.

    Oleh karena itu, atas dasar keniscayaan nilai-nilai demokrasi dan hak asasi manusia, pemerintah dan segenap bangsa Indonesia akan berupaya keras untuk memajukan kehidupan masyarakat Irian Jaya, yang di samping semakin sejahtera, juga mendapatkan kehormatan, harga diri dan martabat kemanusiaannya, sebagai bagian dari keluarga besar Bangsa Indonesia.

    Kerangka dan kebijakan pemerintah yang bertumpu pada otonomi khusus percepatan pembangunan dan program kemanusiaan kiranya dapat diletakkan dalam konteks penyelesaian masalah Irian Jaya secara komprehensif dan permanen.

    Semoga cita-cita dan upaya besar bangsa ini atas ridho Allah dapat terwujud, dan semoga semua jerih payah dan keringat perjuangan para pendiri republik, para pendahulu dan para pejuang Irian Barat dapat tertebus dengan hadirnya propinsi Irian Jaya yang makin maju, adil dan sejahtera sebagai bagian dari Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia yang kita cintai bersama.

    Jakarta, 25 Januari 2001.

    Menteri Koordinator
    Bidang Politik, Sosial dan Keamanan Republik Indonesia
    Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, MA


    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/artikel/interviews-and-in-depth-story/14508-jfk-in&

    http://papindo.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/jfk-indonesia-cia-and-freeport/

    JFK, Indonesia, CIA and Freeport

    Oleh Lisa Pease(*), Papua Post 5:16 am pada November 5, 2011
    Uploaded by Victor Mambor to tabloidjubi.com, 201110302210

    Walau dominasi Freeport atas gunung emas di Papua dimulai sejak tahun 1967, namun kiprahnya di negeri ini sudah dimulai beberapa tahun sebelumnya. Dalam tulisannya, Lisa Pease mendapatkan temuan jika Freeport Sulphur, demikian nama perusahaan itu awalnya, nyaris bangkrut berkeping-keping ketika terjadi pergantian kekuasaan di Kuba tahun 1959.

    Saat itu Fidel Castro berhasil menghancurkan rezim diktator Batista. Oleh Castro, seluruh perusahaan asing di negeri itu dinasionalisasikan. Freeport Sulphur yang baru saja hendak melakukan pengapalan nikel produksi perdananya terkena imbasnya. Ketegangan terjadi. Menurut Lisa Pease, berkali-kali CEO Freeport Sulphur merencanakan upaya pembunuhan terhadap Castro, namun berkali-kali pula menemui kegagalan.

    Ditengah situasi yang penuh ketidakpastian, pada Agustus 1959, Forbes Wilson yang menjabat sebagai Direktur Freeport Sulphur melakukan pertemuan dengan Direktur pelaksana East Borneo Company, Jan van Gruisen. Dalam pertemuan itu Gruisen bercerita jika dirinya menemukan sebuah laporan penelitian atas Gunung Ersberg (Gunung Tembaga) di Irian Barat yang ditulis Jean Jaques Dozy di tahun 1936.

    Uniknya, laporan itu sebenarnya sudah dianggap tidak berguna dan tersimpan selama bertahun-tahun begitu saja di perpustakaan Belanda. Van Gruisen tertarik dengan laporan penelitian yang sudah berdebu itu dan membacanya. Dengan berapi-api, Van Gruisen bercerita kepada pemimpin Freeport Sulphur itu jika selain memaparkan tentang keindahan alamnya, Jean Jaques Dozy juga menulis tentang kekayaan alamnya yang begitu melimpah.

    Tidak seperti wilayah lainnya diseluruh dunia, maka kandungan biji tembaga yang ada disekujur tubuh Gunung Ersberg itu terhampar di atas permukaan tanah, jadi tidak tersembunyi di dalam tanah. Mendengar hal itu, Wilson sangat antusias dan segera melakukan perjalanan ke Irian Barat untuk mengecek kebenaran cerita itu.

    Di dalam benaknya, jika kisah laporan ini benar, maka perusahaannya akan bisa bangkit kembali dan selamat dari kebangkrutan yang sudah di depan mata. Selama beberapa bulan, Forbes Wilson melakukan survey dengan seksama atas Gunung Ersberg dan juga wilayah sekitarnya.

    Penelitiannya ini kelak ditulisnya dalam sebuah buku berjudul The Conquest of Cooper Mountain. Wilson menyebut gunung tersebut sebagai harta karun terbesar yang untuk memperolehnya tidak perlu menyelam lagi karena semua harta karun itu telah terhampar di permukaan tanah. Dari udara, tanah disekujur gunung tersebut berkilauan ditimpa sinar matahari.

    Wilson juga mendapatkan temuan yang nyaris membuatnya gila. Karena selain dipenuhi bijih tembaga, gunung tersebut ternyata juga dipenuhi bijih emas dan perak!! Menurut Wilson, seharusnya gunung tersebut diberi nama GOLD MOUNTAIN, bukan Gunung Tembaga. Sebagai seorang pakar pertambangan, Wilson memperkirakan jika Freeport akan untung besar dalam waktu tiga tahun sudah kembali modal.

    Pimpinan Freeport Sulphur ini pun bergerak dengan cepat. Pada 1 Februari 1960, Freeport Sulphur meneken kerjasama dengan East Borneo Company untuk mengeksplorasi gunung tersebut. Namun lagi-lagi Freeport Sulphur mengalami kenyataan yang hampir sama dengan yang pernah dialaminya di Kuba. Perubahan eskalasi politik atas tanah Irian Barat tengah mengancam.

    Hubungan Indonesia dan Belanda telah memanas dan Soekarno malah mulai menerjunkan pasukannya di Irian Barat. Tadinya Wilson ingin meminta bantuan kepada Presiden AS John Fitzgerald Kennedy agar mendinginkan Irian Barat. Namun ironisnya, JFK malah spertinya mendukung Soekarno.

    Kennedy mengancam Belanda, akan menghentikan bantuan Marshall Plan jika ngotot mempertahankan Irian Barat. Belanda yang saat itu memerlukan bantuan dana segar untuk membangun kembali negerinya dari puing-puing kehancuran akibat Perang Dunia II terpaksa mengalah dan mundur dari Irian Barat.

    Ketika itu sepertinya Belanda tidak tahu jika Gunung Ersberg sesungguhnya mengandung banyak emas, bukan tembaga. Sebab jika saja Belanda mengetahui fakta sesungguhnya, maka nilai bantuan Marshall Plan yang diterimanya dari AS tidak ada apa-apanya dibanding nilai emas yang ada di gunung tersebut.

    Dampak dari sikap Belanda untuk mundur dari Irian Barat menyebabkan perjanjian kerjasama dengan East Borneo Company mentah kembali. Para pemimpin Freeport jelas marah besar. Apalagi mendengar Kennedy akan menyiapkan paket bantuan ekonomi kepada Indonesia sebesar 11 juta AS dengan melibatkan IMF dan Bank Dunia. Semua ini jelas harus dihentikan!

    Segalanya berubah seratus delapan puluh derajat ketika Presiden Kennedy tewas ditembak pada 22 November 1963. Banyak kalangan menyatakan penembakan Kennedy merupakan sebuah konspirasi besar menyangkut kepentingan kaum Globalis yang hendak mempertahankan hegemoninya atas kebijakan politik di Amerika.

    Presiden Johnson yang menggantikan Kennedy mengambil sikap yang bertolak belakang dengan pendahulunya. Johnson malah mengurangi bantuan ekonomi kepada Indonesia, kecuali kepada militernya. Salah seorang tokoh di belakang keberhasilan Johnson, termasuk dalam kampanye pemilihan presiden AS tahun 1964, adalah Augustus C.Long, salah seorang anggota dewan direksi Freeport.

    Tokoh yang satu ini memang punya kepentingan besar atas Indonesia. Selain kaitannya dengan Freeport, Long juga memimpin Texaco, yang membawahi Caltex (patungan dengan Standard Oil of California). Soekarno pada tahun 1961 memutuskan kebijakan baru kontrak perminyakan yang mengharuskan 60 persen labanya diserahkan kepada pemerintah Indonesia. Caltex sebagai salah satu dari tiga operator perminyakan di Indonesia jelas sangat terpukul oleh kebijakan Soekarno ini.

    Augustus C.Long amat marah terhadap Soekarno dan amat berkepentingan agar orang ini disingkirkan secepatnya. Mungkin suatu kebetulan yang ajaib. Augustus C.Long juga aktif di Presbysterian Hospital di NY dimana dia pernah dua kali menjadi presidennya (1961-1962). Sudah bukan rahasia umum lagi jika tempat ini merupakan salah satu simpul pertemuan tokoh CIA.

    Lisa Pease dengan cermat menelusuri riwayat kehidupan tokoh ini. Antara tahun 1964 sampai 1970, Long pensiun sementara sebagai pemimpin Texaco. Apa saja yang dilakukan orang ini dalam masa itu yang di Indonesia dikenal sebagai masa yang paling krusial. Pease mendapatkan data jika pada Maret 1965, Augustus C.Long terpilih sebagai Direktur Chemical Bank, salah satu perusahaan Rockefeller.

    Augustus 1965, Long diangkat menjadi anggota dewan penasehat intelejen kepresidenan AS untuk masalah luar negeri. Badan ini memiliki pengaruh sangat besar untuk menentukan operasi rahasia AS di Negara-negara tertentu. Long diyakini salah satu tokoh yang merancang kudeta terhadap Soekarno, yang dilakukan AS dengan menggerakkan sejumlah perwira Angkatan Darat yang disebutnya sebagai Our Local Army Friend.

    Salah satu bukti sebuah telegram rahasia Cinpac 342, 21 Januari 1965, pukul 21.48, yang menyatakan jika kelompok Jendral Suharto akan mendesak angkatan darat agar mengambil-alih kekuasaan tanpa menunggu Soekarno berhalangan. Mantan pejabat CIA Ralph Mc Gehee juga pernah bersaksi jika hal itu benar adanya.

    Awal November 1965, satu bulan setelah tragedi terbunuhnya sejumlah perwira loyalis Soekarno, Forbes Wilson mendapat telpon dari Ketua Dewan Direktur Freeport, Langbourne Williams, yang menanyakan apakah Freeport sudah siap mengekplorasi gunung emas di Irian Barat. Wilson jelas kaget. Ketika itu Soekarno masih sah sebagai presiden Indonesia bahkan hingga 1967, lalu darimana Williams yakin gunung emas di Irian Barat akan jatuh ke tangan Freeport?

    Lisa Pease mendapatkan jawabannya. Para petinggi Freeport ternyata sudah mempunyai kontak dengan tokoh penting di dalam lingkaran elit Indonesia. Mereka adalah Menteri Pertambangan dan Perminyakan Ibnu Soetowo dan Julius Tahija. Orang yang terakhir ini berperan sebagai penghubung antara Ibnu Soetowo dengan Freeport. Ibnu Soetowo sendiri sangat berpengaruh di dalam angkatan darat karena dialah yang menutup seluruh anggaran operasional mereka.

    Sebab itulah, ketika UU no 1/1967 tentang Penanaman Modal Asing (PMA) yang draftnya dirancang di Jenewa-Swiss yang didektekan Rockefeller, disahkan tahun 1967, maka perusahaan asing pertama yang kontraknya ditandatangani Suharto adalah Freeport!. Inilah kali pertama kontrak pertambangan yang baru dibuat.

    Jika di zaman Soekarno kontrak-kontrak dengan perusahaan asing selalu menguntungkan Indonesia, maka sejak Suharto berkuasa, kontrak-kontrak seperti itu malah merugikan Indonesia.

    Untuk membangun konstruksi pertambangan emasnya itu, Freeport mengandeng Bechtel, perusahaan AS yang banyak mempekerjakan pentolan CIA. Direktur CIA John McCone memiliki saham di Bechtel, sedangkan mantan Direktur CIA Richards Helms bekerja sebagai konsultan internasional di tahun 1978.

    Tahun 1980, Freeport menggandeng McMoran milik “Jim Bob” Moffet dan menjadi perusahaan raksasa dunia dengan laba lebih dari 1,5 miliar dollar AS pertahun. Tahun 1996, seorang eksekutif Freeport-McMoran, George A.Maley, menulis sebuah buku berjudul “Grasberg” setelab 384 halaman dan memaparkan jika tambang emas di Irian Barat itu memiliki deposit terbesar di dunia, sedangkan untuk bijih tembaganya menempati urutan ketiga terbesar didunia.

    Maley menulis, data tahun 1995 menunjukkan jika di areal ini tersimpan cadangan bijih tembaga sebesar 40,3 miliar dollar AS dan masih akan menguntungkan 45 tahun ke depan. Ironisnya, Maley dengan bangga juga menulis jika biaya produksi tambang emas dan tembaga terbesar di dunia yang ada di Irian Barat itu merupakan yang termurah di dunia!!

    Istilah Kota Tembagapura itu sebenarnya menyesatkan dan salah. Seharusnya EMASPURA. Karena gunung tersebut memang gunung emas, walau juga mengandung tembaga. Karena kandungan emas dan tembaga terserak di permukaan tanah, maka Freeport tinggal memungutinya dan kemudian baru menggalinya dengan sangat mudah.

    Freeport sama sekali tidak mau kehilangan emasnya itu dan membangun pipa-pipa raksasa dan kuat dari Grasberg-Tembagapura sepanjang 100 kilometer langsung menuju ke Laut Arafuru dimana telah menunggu kapal-kapal besar yang akan mengangkut emas dan tembaga itu ke Amerika. Ini sungguh-sungguh perampokan besar yang direstui oleh pemerintah Indonesia sampai sekarang!!!

    Kesaksian seorang reporter CNN yang diizinkan meliput areal tambang emas Freeport dari udara. Dengan helikopter ia meliput gunung emas tersebut yang ditahun 1990-an sudah berubah menjadi lembah yang dalam. Semua emas, perak, dan tembaga yang ada digunung tersebut telah dibawa kabur ke Amerika, meninggalkan limbah beracun yang mencemari sungai-sungai dan tanah-tanah orang Papua yang sampai detik ini masih saja hidup bagai di zaman batu.

    Freeport merupakan ladang uang haram bagi para pejabat negeri ini, yang dari sipil maupun militer. Sejak 1967 sampai sekarang, tambang emas terbesar di dunia itu menjadi tambang pribadi mereka untuk memperkaya diri sendiri dan keluarganya. Freeport McMoran sendiri telah menganggarkan dana untuk itu yang walau jumlahnya sangat besar bagi kita, namun bagi mereka terbilang kecil karena jumlah laba dari tambang itu memang sangat dahsyat. Jika Indonesia mau mandiri, sektor inilah yang harus dibereskan terlebih dahulu.

    Sumber : Blog Media Kata, telah dimuat di majalah Probe

    http://www.tabloidjubi.com/artikel/interviews-and-in-depth-story/14508-jfk-in…

    2011-07-05 – 07:47:23 – Benarkah PT Freeport Hanya Menambang Emas, Perak dan Tembaga?, http://www.tabloidjubi.com/interviews-a-indepth-stories/13055-benarkah-pt-freeport-hanya-menambang-emas-perak-dan-tembaga


    http://www.jpnn.com/index.php?mib=berita.detail&id=125886

    http://www.infoindo.com/20120430140822-read-1-mei-sejarah-irian-barat-kembali-dikenang

    1 Mei, Sejarah Irian Barat Kembali Dikenang

    Senin, 30 April 2012 , 12:16:00
    Senin, 30 April 2012 | 14:08:22 WITA

    MANOKWARI – Lembaga Masyarakat Adat (LMA) Provinsi Papua Barat akan mensosialisasikan sejarah kembalinya Irian Barat (kini Papua) ke dalam Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia. Ketua LMA Provinsi Papua Barat, Maurits Saiba mengatakan, sosialiasikan ini perlu dilakukan agar masyarakat dapat mengetahui secara jelas bagaimana perjuangan kembalinya Papua ke dalam NKRI.

    ‘’Kita mesti berikan pemahaman yang benar pada masyarakat.Jangan berikan hal-hal yang kurang baik yang bisa berdampak merugikan,’’ ujar Saiba dalam jumpa pers di kantor LMA, Sabtu (29/4).

    Menurut Saiba,1 Mei 1969 merupakan hari bersejarah bagi kembalinya Papua ke dalam NKRI. Pada saat ini ada proses Pepera (Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat) dan perlu diketahui secara jelas oleh masyarakat. ‘’Perlu ada kesadaran dari masyarakat,bahwa Papua sekarang berada dalam bingkati NKRI,’’ tukas Saiba.

    Ketua LMA ini pun menyadari bahwa saat ini ada aspirasi yang hendak memisahkan diri dari NKRI. Ia tak mempersoalkan karena hal tersebut merupakan aspirasi di era demokrasi. ‘’Ada perdebatan alot serta ada isu-isu yang menghendaki Papua harus merdeka dari NKRI. Tapi, saya mau katakan, merdeka itu bisa terlepas dari kemiskinan di bidang pendidikan dan sejahtera,’’ terangnya.

    Terpenting dilakukan saat ini menurut, Ketua LMA, yakni bagaimana mengajak masyarakat untuk bersama-sama pemerintah melaksanakan pembangunan. Juga yang patut dijaga, menciptakan rasa aman bagi masyarakat. ‘’Kondisi daerah harus aman supaya pembangunan terus berjalan. Kita tidak bisa melarang masyarakat menyampaikan sesuatu tapi jangan sampai masyarakat dirugikan,’’ ucapnya.

    Wakil Ketua LMA Papua Barat, Frengky Umpain menambahkan, menyambut 1 Mei, sebagai anak bangsa yang hidup di ujung Timur Indonesia, masyarakat adat di Papua harus memahami bahwa 1 Mei merupakan fondasi dimana kembalinya Papua ke dalam NKRI. ‘’Sebagai generasi muda, kita harus pamahi, 1 Mei merupakan awal,’’ tandasnya.

    Frengky menyatakan, kondisi sekarang ini sudah cukup baik dengan diberlakukannya UU Otsus di Papua. ’’Kurang apa lagi yang diberikan pemerintah. Daerah lain belum tentu mendapatkan perhatian seperti di Papua ini,’’ tukasnya.

     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 1:21 AM on 2012/05/22 Permalink  

    Sistem Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi di Indonesia diberangus oleh Sang Penguasa

    oleh Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 22 May 2012, 01.21

    Sebagai satu produk politik, keberadaan kebijakan apa pun HARUS SIRNA DI MUKA BUMI ketika sang penguasa berkonflik dengan penggagas. Contohnya adalah Sistem Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi yang semakin tidak jelas keberadaannya.

    Tiga tahun yang lalu, hampir seluruh insan penyelenggara pendidikan tinggi tidak tahu sedikitpun tentang apa yang dinamakan dengan SPMPT. Apa lagi yang namanya HELTS, Higher Education Long-Term Strategy. Semuanya disimpan oleh makhluk-makhluk yang mendompleng dan memanfaatkan konektivitas dengan Dirjen Tinggi.

    Saat kasak-kusuk dengan orang di Dikti dan Dewan Pendidikan Tinggi, hampir semuanya angkat bahu ketika ditanyakan hal tentang SPMPT, HELTS, dan sejenisnya. Sontoloyo banget. Pun kalau informasi yang diberikan, hanya remah-remahnya saja yang diberikan. File yang sangat penting HARUS DIUMPETIN. Bikin DOnGkOL banget. Untung ada Mr GOGOL.

    Mr Gogol sangat membantu dalam memberikan sedikit latar belakang pembuat HELTS dalam satu konsorsium. Ketika dihubungi satu persatu, hampir tidak ada respon yang berarti, kecuali mantan purek unila. makasih bu, banyak, banget. gbu.

    Berikut beberapa file awal keberadaan HELTS, SPMPT, dan 4 prinsip UNESCO yang disimpulkan Jacques Delors et al yang banyak dikutip sebagai 4 pilar pendidikan:

    All original links have been very dead and broken, unless provided unhidden.

    1. KEBIJAKAN NASIONAL SISTIM PENJAMINAN MUTU PERGURUAN TINGGI (SPM-PT) Sub Tema: Sinkronisasi Sistim Penjaminan Mutu Internal (SPM-PT), EPSBED dan Penjaminan Mutu Eksternal (Akreditasi).
    2. Pedoman Penjaminan Mutu (Quality Assurance) Pendidikan Tinggi, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi, 2003.
    3. HELTS 2003-2010, versi Bahasa Indonesia, http://www.inherent-dikti.net/files/HELTS2003-2010B.pdf
    4. Sistem Penjaminan Mutu UGM, http://directory.umm.ac.id/Mixed%2520Data/mutuUGM.pdf
    5. Jacques Delors, et al, Learning: The Treasure Within, Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century UNESCO, Paris, 1996, 111 pages.
    6. Jacques Delors, et al, Learning: The Treasure Within, Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century UNESCO, Paris, 1996, THE HIGHLIGHTS: 45 pages, http://www.unesco.org/delors/delors_e.pdf, http://www.education.unesco.org/educnews/delors/delors_e.pdf, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001095/109590eo.pdf

    Banyak nama besar seperti Ki Sontoloyo yang sangat tidak membantu. Tulisannya sangat bagus. Cuma referensi dalam tulisannya sangat dirahasiakan. Hunting lagi dengan Mr Gogol dengan kata-kata kunci seperti Paul Streeten, 7 kebebasan, HDR 1999. Ki Sontoloyo ternyata TIDAK TAHU SEJARAH. The Four Freedoms. Enak-enak aja dia mendefinisikan sendiri 7 kebebasan dalam tujuan pendidikan. Dasar sontoloyo.

    Ada tulisan bagus dari Ton Vroeijenstijn selaku The Chief Quality Officers (CQOs) of the AUN member universities. How Do We Know That We Are Good? (And How Do Others Know It?) Searching di komputer apa nama file yang pernah ditulis sama dia dan dikutip. bikin repot, karena ternyata file orisinil yang pernah di-upload adalah dalam bentuk kompresi. dan web site yang menyediakan sudah didelete. wtf is the url?

    suruh lagi komputernya nyari asal Content-Location. ketemu: bkpmpti.com. fiuh. here is the url:

    The snapshot of http://bkpmpti.com/index.php as of 7 May 2009


    Badan Koordinasi Penjaminan Mutu Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia

    Selamat datang di web Badan Kerjasama Penjaminan Mutu Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia (BKPMPTI). Pada awalnya BKPMPTI dibentuk dengan tujuan untuk mendorong dan mempromosikan pengembangan sistem penjaminan mutu pendidikan tinggi sebagai usaha untuk meningkatkan dan memajukan proses pembelajaran, penelitian, dan pelayanan kepada masyarakat. Selain itu, dalam aktifitasnya BKPMPTI membantu Dirjen-DIKTI dalam pembinaan sistem penjaminan mutu akademik perguruan tinggi. Besar harapan kami tim kerja BKPMPTI agar segenap insan yang yang peduli terhadap pengembangan sistem pendidikan tinggi dapat berperan serta dalam forum ini.

    Pengelola BKPMPTI:

    1. Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogya
    2. Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogya
    3. Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta
    4. Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung
    5. Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung
    6. Universitas Sriwijaya, Palembang

    Tim Kerja BKPMPTI:

    1.  Ir. Haryana , M.Arch. – UGM
    2.  Dr. Ir. Ubuh Buchara Hidayat – ITB
    3.  Prof. Dr. Amri Marzali – UI
    4.  Dr. Ir. Kusmayadi Suradi – UNPAD
    5.  Dr. Ir. Rujito Agus S, M.Agr. – UNSRI
    6.  Dra. Prapti Antarwiyati M.Si.Akt- UII

    Webmaster:
    Ipan Pranashakti KIP (UII)

    Feedback:
    Email: bkpmpti@yahoo.com

    Hotline/SMS 24 jam:
    0815 787 22222

    Profil BKPMPTI

    Histori
    Badan Kerjasama Penjaminan Mutu Perguruan Tinggi Indonesia (BK-PMPTI) dibentuk pada tanggal 20 April 2004, berdasarkan Kesepakatan Yogyakarta dalam pertemuan Nasional CQOS di Universitas Gadjah Mada. Hasil kesepakatan tersebut antara lain pembentukan Tim Kerja BKPMPTI yang terdiri dari:

    1. Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta
    2. Universitas Indonesia, Jakarta
    3. Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung
    4. Universitas Padjajaran, Bandung
    5. Universitas Sriwijaya, Palembang
    6. Universitas Islam Indonesia, Yogyakarta

    Bentuk Organisasi BK-PMPTI
    BK-PMPTI merupakan organisasi nonformal yang berupaya menjalin kerjasama antar perguruan tinggi di Indonesia yang terkait dengan pengembangan penjaminan mutu pendidikan tinggi.

    Keanggotaan BK-PMPTI
    Semua perguruan tinggi di Indonesia dapat menjadi anggota BK-PMPTI. Perguruan Tinggi menjadi anggota BK-PMPTI setelah berpartisipasi aktif dalam berbagai kegiatan BK-PMPTI

    BK-PMPTI wilayah
    Pembentukan BK-PMTI wilayah dapat dilakukan bila diperlukan.
    BK-PMPTI wilayah berfungsi seperti BK-PMPTI nasioanal untuk wilayahnya.

    Tim Kerja BK-PMPTI

    1. Ir. Haryana , M.Arch. – UGM (Ketua Tim)
    2. Dr. Ir. Ubuh Buchara Hidayat – ITB
    3. Prof. Dr. Amri Marzali – UI
    4. Dr. Ir. Kusmayadi Suradi – UNPAD
    5. Dr. Ir. Rujito Agus Suwignyo, M.Agr. – UNSRI
    6. Dra. Prapti Antarwiyati. M.Si. Akt- UII

    Tujuan BK-PMPTI
    Mendorong dan mempromosikan pengembangan sistem penjaminan mutu pendidikan tinggi sebagai usaha untuk meningkatkan dan memajukan proses pembelajaran, penelitian, dan pelayanan kepada masyarakat

    Sekretariat BK-PMPTI
    Sekretariat BK-PMPTI nasional ditentukan dalam pertemuan tahunan
    Perguruan tinggi pelaksana sekretariat menunjuk seorang Ketua Pelaksana
    Perguruan tinggi pelaksana sekretariat membiayai kegiatan kesekretariatan BK-PMPTI

    Sekretariat dan Pengelola Web BK-PMPTI
    Alamat Sekretariat BK-PMPTI
    Kantor Jaminan Mutu Universitas Gadjah Mada
    Gedung Pusat UGM Sayap Selatan -
    Lantai II Bulaksumur Yogyakarta – 55281

    Telp/Fax : (0274) 901989
    Email : qa@ugm.ac.id, kjm_ugm@yahoo.com, kjm_ugm@operamail.com
    Website : http://kjm.ugm.ac.id

    Pengembang dan Pengelola Web BK-PMPTI
    Badan Penjaminan Mutu, Universitas Islam Indonesia
    Gedung Rektorat lantai III, Kampus Terpadu UII
    Jl. Kaliurang km.14.5 Besi, Sleman, DI Yogyakarta 55584

    Telp. (0274) 898444 Ext.1313, 1312 Fax. (0274) 898459
    Email: bkm@uii.ac.id, webmaster@bkpmpti.com
    Website : http://www.uii.ac.id

    Program Kerja BK-PMPTI

    1. Menjalin kerjasama dengan Ditjen-DIKTI
    2. Mengirim Informasi tentang sistem penjaminan mutu pendidikan tinggi dalam rangka mendorong perguruan tinggi untuk mengawali pembentukan sistem manajemen mutu pendidikan tinggi
    3. Menyusun dan menyebarluaskan: Teaching-learning guidelines AUN-QA. best practices for research and community services
    4. Menyelenggarakan pertemuan tahunan BKM-PMPTI
    5. Membangun website sebagai sarana Forum Komunikasi Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi Indonesia (FK-PMPTI)
    6. Menyelenggarakan kegiatan pelatihan dalam rangka pengembangan sistem penjaminan mutu di perguruan tinggi

    Aktifitas BK-PMPTI

    1. Menyelenggarakan pertemuan anggota, minimal sekali setiap tahun dengan agenda pertemuan yang disiapkan oleh sekretariat dan perguruan tinggi mitra.
    2. Menggiatkan Forum Komunikasi Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi Indonesia (FK-PMPTI)
    3. Membantu Dirjen-DIKTI dalam pembinaan sistem penjaminan mutu akademik perguruan tinggi
    4. Membantu perguruan tinggi dalam pembinaan sistem penjaminan mutu akademik perguruan tinggi

    Ada 3 macam keanggotan BK-PMPTI.

    Anggota dari institusi perguruan tinggi
    Prosedur pendaftaran:
    Daftar secara online di web BK-PMPTI ini
    Download formulir pendaftaran cetak, setelah diisi kemudian ditandatangani oleh pimpinan universitas, kemudian kirim lewat pos atau fax ke sekretariat BK-PMPTI Fax : (0274) 563025

    Anggota dari personal
    Personal yang punya komitmen terhadap implementasi sistem manajemen mutu perguruan tinggi
    Prosedur pendaftaran:
    Daftar secara online di web BK-PMPTI ini dengan mengisi seluruh item form.

    Anggota web forum
    Keanggotaan web forum berbeda dengan 2 keanggotaabn di atas. Keanggotaan web forum belaku hanya di forum online web BKPMPTI. Sehingga perlu registrasi sebagai anggota web forum dan sifatnya personal, karena bisa menentukan nickname dan password sesuai keinginan anggota. Keanggotaan web forum sifatnya terbuka untuk semua person yang mempunyai kepedulian dan komitmen terhadap implementasi sistem mutu pendidikan tinggi Indonesia.

    All original links have been very dead and broken.

    Download Formulir Anggota Institusi.

    Download Formulir Anggota Personal.

    Materi Download BKPMPTI

    All original links have been very dead and broken.

    1. Sistem Penjaminan Mutu (Quality Assurance) Pendidikan Tinggi (UGM)
    2. Konsep dan Model Penjaminan Mutu Perguruan Tinggi (UII)
    3. Sistem Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Tinggi: Gerakan Internasional
    4. Notulen Rapat BK-PMPTI 22 Mei 2004
    5. Hasil Kesepakatan Yogyakarta (Yogyakara Accord)
    6. Quality Assurance System Group Discussion Resume
    7. AUN Quality Assurance Guidelines
    8. Bologna Reform The European Higher Education Area, 19 Juni 1999
    9. How Do We Know That We Are Good? (And How Do Others Know It?)
    AUN-QA

    07 cover_new_MAY_9


    AUN-QA Manual – ASEAN University Network, Manual for the Implementation of the AUN-QA Guidelines, HRK German Rectors’ Conference, http://www.aunsec.org/site/upload/qa/QA_Manual.pdf, 18.05.2007, Foreword by Ton Vroeijenstijn, The Chief Quality Officers (CQOs) of the AUN member universities.


    Dirjen Dikti, Sistem Penjaminan Mutu Perguruan Tinggi (SPM-PT), Buku Panduan 2010, Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional, Jakarta, 12.05.2011, http://www.dikti.go.id/dmdocuments/belmawa/2011/Buku%20Panduan%20SPM-PT.pdf

    R. Ceha, Sosialisasi Kebijakan Penelitian Perguruan Tinggi, LPPM Unisba, 13.02.2012, http://lppm.unisba.ac.id/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=69&Itemid=125, 2Sosialisasi LPPM 7 Februari 2012 [Compatibility Mode].pdf

    STIKES Dian Husada, Penjaminan Mutu (Quality Assurance), Buku Pedoman 2010, Sekolah Tinggi Ilmu Kesehtan (STIKES) Dian Husada Mojokerto, 05.07.2010, http://www.dianhusada.ac.id/BUKU%2520PENJAMINAN%2520MUTU.pdf

    http://eng.unri.ac.id/download/lokakarya_jaminan_mutu/Makalah%20Lokakarya/Makalah%20Pak%20Dadang/Makalah%20JAMINAN%20MUTU%20P%20T.doc

    Abdul Azis Wahab, Sistem Penjaminan Mutu Akademik Perguruan Tinggi, Kasus Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, UPI, 7 Pebruari 2011, http://www.ipdn.ac.id/upm/sistem_penjaminan_mutu_pt.pdf


    http://dali.staff.gunadarma.ac.id/Publications

    http://dali.staff.gunadarma.ac.id/Publications/files/743/5180-aUNJ.doc

    MUTU PERGURUAN TINGGI KITA

    Oleh Dali Santun Naga
    26.04.2008

    Pendahuluan

    Menurut laporan Unesco, pada paruh kedua abad ke-20, jumlah mahasiswa meningkat sampai enam kali lipat, dari 13 juta pada tahun 1960 menjadi 82 juta pada tahun 1995. Namun pada waktu yang sama, terdapat jurang yang makin lebar di antara negara industri maju dengan negara kurang maju dalam hal akses dan sumber daya untuk pendidikan tinggi dan penelitian.

    Hal ini pun terjadi di Indonesia. Pada awal tahun 1950-an, jumlah mahasiswa di Indonesia sangat kecil. Perguruan tinggi juga sangat sedikit. Di samping Universitet Indonesia (kemudian menjadi Universitas Indonesia) dan Universitit Gadjah Mada (kemudian menjadi Universitas Gadjah Mada), hanya ada satu dua perguruan tinggi swasta. Namun pada saat itu keperluan akan tenaga sarjana terus meningkat sebagai akibat hengkangnya tenaga ahli Belanda sehubungan dengan perjuangan Irian Barat.

    Kelangkaan tenaga sarjana ini memicu keinginan para lulusan SMA untuk memasuki perguruan tinggi. Jumlah mahasiswa terus meningkat dari tahun ke tahun. Daya tampung perguruan tinggi sangat terbatas sehingga tidak banyak lulusan SMA yang berhasil menjadi mahasiswa. Untuk mengatasi kesenjangan ini, pada akhir tahun 1950-an dan tahun 1960-an, pemerintah mendirikan perguruan tinggi negeri di tiap provinsi serta melepas cabang Universitas Indonesia di luar Jakarta untuk menjadi perguruan tinggi sendiri.

    Animo untuk menjadi mahasiswa terus meningkat sehingga daya tampung perguruan tinggi tidak dapat menampung jumlah calon mahasiswa yang terus meningkat itu. Kesenjangan ini pun diisi oleh perguruan tinggi swasta yang jumlahnya terus bertambah. Pemerintah pun mulai membina perguruan tinggi swasta agar mereka dapat menyamai perguruan tinggi negeri. Pembinaan ini dilakukan melalui program pola tunggal untuk perguruan tinggi negeri dan swasta.

    Melalui program pola tunggal, perguruan tinggi swasta diklasifikasikan ke dalam kategori disamakan, diakui, dan terdaftar. Secara periodik, perguruan tinggi dievaluasi oleh koordinatorat perguruan tinggi swasta. Kemudian, perguruan tinggi swasta diberi kelonggaran untuk mengatur diri mereka sendiri. Bersama itu, dari sistem klasifikasi, pembinaan  beranjak ke sistem akreditasi. Namun berbeda dengan sistem klasifikasi yang hanya berlaku untuk perguruan tinggi swasta, sistem akreditasi berlaku umum untuk perguruan tinggi negeri dan pergurusan tinggi swasta. Pada awalnya, program akreditasi dilakukan terhadap program studi dan selanjutnya diterapkan juga ke institusi atau kelembagaan.

    Misi Perguruan Tinggi

    Pada awal tahun 1950-an, misi perguruan tinggi sangat sederhana. Misi perguruan tinggi pada waktu itu adalah menghasilkan sarjana yang diperlukan untuk mengisi lowongan tenaga sarjana di birokrasi pemerintah dan perusahaan swasta. Misi ini juga dianut oleh berbagai perguruan tinggi swasta sehingga rekrutmen dosen di perguruan tinggi swasta mengandalkan tenaga sarjana yang ada di berbagai instansi.

    Pembelajaran terutama di perguruan tinggi swasta lebih berpola kepada dosen datang ketika dapat meninggalkan pekerjaan, memberi kuliah dan ujian, dan pulang ke rumah atau kembali ke tempat kerja. Untuk menghilangkan keraguan masyarakat terhadap lulusan perguruan tinggi swasta pada waktu itu, maka diadakan ujian negara bagi para lulusan perguruan tinggi swasta. Sistem ujian ini sangat tidak efisien dan sangat membebani para peserta ujian karena bahan kuliah selama beberapa tahun diuji pada satu saat.

    Kemudian muncul sistem yang lebih baik yakni sistem ujian negara cicilan. Peserta ujian negara cicilan pun meningkat sehingga perguruan tinggi kategori disamakan dibebaskan dari ujian negara. Kemudi, dengan munculnya sistem akreditasi, ujian negara turut dihapus sehingga perguruan tinggi dibebaskan untuk menyelenggarakan ujian sendiri. Mereka langsung mempertanggungjawabkan lulusan mereka kepada pemakai tenaga sarjana di dalam masyarakat.

    Langkah pemerintah berikutnya adalah penjaminan mutu. Selain sistem akreditasi yang dilakukan oleh badan akreditasi, perguruan tinggi diharapkan untuk dapat mengevaluasi diri mereka sendiri melalui penjaminan mutu di dalam perguruan tinggi. Berbagai perguruan tinggi membentuk lembaga penjaminan mutu untuk mengendalikan mutu mereka agar sesuai dengan misi perguruan tinggi. Dan untuk itu, badan akreditasi perguruan tinggi juga mulai mengakreditasi institusi perguruan tinggi.

    Dengan demikian, misi perguruan tinggi yang sederhana berupa pelulusan sarjana, berubah menjadi misi yang lebih rumit berupa pelulusan sarjana yang bermutu. Bersama itu mucul banyak masalah. Mutu yang bagaimana yang diharapkan dari perguruan tinggi? Bagaimana caranya untuk mencapai mutu yang diharapkan itu? Kalau peningkatan mutu ini dilakukan secara bertahap, maka apa saja tahapan pengingkatan mutu itu?

    Tahapan Pengembangan

    Uraian di atas menunjukkan kepada kita arah pengembangan perguruan tinggi di Indonesia. Bahkan arah pengembangan itu dapat dibagi ke dalam tahapan. Tahapan pertama adalah pelulusan sarjana yang diperlukan  di dalam masyarakat ketika lowongan pekerjaan itu ditinggalkan oleh tenaga ahli Belanda. Dari tahun ke tahun, jumlah lulusan terus bertambah. Dalam waktu beberapa dasawarsa terjadi kejenuhan sehingga banyak sarjana yang menganggur. Tahapan pertama ini berlangsung dari awal tahun 1950-an sampai tahun 1990-an. Tahapan pertama ini telah kita lewati.

    Tahapan kedua adalah penjaminan mutu. Sarjana yang diluluskan diharapkan memiliki mutu yang tinggi. Karena itu mutu lembaga pendidikan juga perlu ditinggikan. Selain pengendalian mutu internal perguruan tinggi dibentuk juga lembaga pengendalian mutu eksternal. Pada saat ini lembaga pengendalian mutu eksternal adalah Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi. Tahapan kedua ini dimulai pada tahun 1990-an dan kini masih terus berlangsung. Kini perguruan tinggi di Indonesia berada pada tahapan kedua ini.

    Tahapan ketiga adalah penghasil ilmu dan teknologi. Temuan ilmiah dilakukan melalui penelitian serta invensi teknologi dilakukan melalui rekacipta. Universitas yang mampu melaksanakan misi ini sering dinamakan universitas penelitian (research university). Pada tahapan ini, perguruan tinggi tidak saja menyerap ilmu temuan dari luar negeri atau teknologi invensi dari luar negeri melaikan juga memberi sumbangan kepada ilmu dan teknologi. Pada saat ini kita belum dapat mengestimasi kapan tahapan ini dapat dimulai. Waktu mulai itu sangat bergantung kepada keberhasilan tahapan kedua ini.

    Karena pada saat ini, perguruan tinggi kita masih pada tahapan kedua, maka ada baiknya kalau bahasan ini kita batasi pada tahapan kedua ini. Bahasan ini kita kita batasi pada usaha penjaminan mutu perguruan tinggi. Dalam rangka inilah pertanyaan di depan menjadi relevan. Mutu yang bagaimana yang diharapkan dari perguruan tinggi? Bagaimana caranya untuk mencapai mutu yang diharapkan itu? Kalau peningkatan mutu ini dilakukan secara bertahap, maka apa saja tahapan pengingkatan mutu itu?

    Standar Mutu

    Mutu bagaimana yang perlu dicapai oleh perguruan tinggi dapat ditentukan melalui standar atau benchmarking. Pada saat ini kita telah memiliki Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan (BSNP) dan Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi (BAN-PT).  Sementara BSNP masih sibuk dengan pendidikan dasar dan menengah, urusan standar di perguruan tinggi dilakukan oleh BAN-PT.

    Pada saat ini BAN-PT telah menysusun 15 standar untuk kelembagaan perguruan tinggi. Standar ini sedang diujicobakan ke sejumlah perguruan tinggi. Materi standar ini mencakup berbagai hal dari kepemimpinan sampai ke pendanaan. Di samping itu Direktorat Jenderal Pendidikan Tinggi sedang berusaha menemukan daftar dari 100 perguruan tinggi yang baik. Penemuan ini dapat berfungsi sebagai benchmark bagi perguruan tinggi lainnya. Dengan demikian penjaminan mutu dilakukan secara sejajar melalui penerapan standar dan bencmarking.

    Standar mutu yang dihasilkan oleh Badan Akreditasi Nasional Perguruan Tinggi yang berjumlah lima belas butir ini masih dalam tahap pengembangan. Butir-butir standar masih dalam pembahasan untuk menemukan rumusan yang lebih baik. Di samping perbaikan rumusan dari setiap butir, masih diperlukan penjabaran yang lebih rinci dari setiap butir itu. Standar kurikulum dan pembelajaran, misalnya, memerlukan penjabaran lebih lanjut untuk menjadi pedoman bagi usaha ke arah mutu yang tinggi.

    Setiap perguruan tinggi dapat saja dengan usahanya sendiri untuk menjabarkan standar kurikulum dan pembelajaran yang mampu menghasilkan lulusan yang bermutu. Selain diakreditasi oleh lembaga akreditasi, secara tidak formal, lulusan yang bermutu ini juga diakreditasi oleh masyarakat melalui pengakuan masyarakat terhadap mutu lulusan itu. Dengan demikian, penjaminan mutu perguruan tinggi, selain secara formal diakrediasi melalui standar yang dirumuskan oleh lembaga akreditasi masih secara tidak formal diakreditasi oleh pemakai lulusan di masyarakat.

    Mutu dari Hulu ke Hilir

    Bagaimana caranya mencapai mutu yang diharapkan? Cara yang paling baik adalah bertahap. Ada tahap yang perlu didahulukan serta ada tahap yang dapat ditunda. Karena itu, di dalam penentuan tahap ini diperlukan adanya prioritas. Dengan sendirinya banyak versi dan alasan untuk menentukan tahap mana yang menempati prioritas pertama. Salah satu versi yang dikemukakan di sini adalah pembinaan mutu dari hulu ke hilir.       Ini berarti ada hulu dan ada hilir di dalam penguasaan ilmu di perguruan tinggi.

    Ilmu di hulu telah banyak kita tekuni melalui pelajaran, seminar, lokakarya, dan artikel jurnal. Banyak makalah dan artikel dikemukakan di dalam seminar atau dalam bentuk artikel ilmiah. Biasanya makalah dan artikel ilmiah yang telah dibahas semuanya disimpan di dalam lemari. Mereka menjadi arsif di perguruan tinggi. Ilmu yang dibahas itu berhenti di hulu.

    Di sejumlah negara lain, makalah yang dibahas di dalam seminar atau dalam bentuk artikel jurnal kemudian diterapkan menjadi produk yang dapat digunakan. Ketika para ilmuwan membahas semikonduktor di hulu maka muncullah transistor di hilir. Pada saat ilmuwan membahas teori komputasi di hulu maka muncullah komputer di hilir. Ketika para ilmuwan membahas pertanian di hulu maka muncullah durian Bangkok di hilir. Pada saat para ilmuwan membahas flu H5N1 di hulu maka muncullah vaksin flu burung di hilir.

    Penjaminan mutu berupa pembinaan ilmu dari hulu ke hilir pantas menduduki prioritas pertama di dalam tahap penjaminan mutu. Tidak saja ilmu di hulu itu menunjukkan manfaatnya berupa produk di hilir, melainkan juga produk di hilir itu menghasilkan banyak masalah yang memerlukan penelitian di hulu. Dengan demikian terjadilah siklus dari hulu ke hilir dan dari hilir ke hulu.

    Penelitian dan Rekacipta

    Perguruan tinggi tidak dapat dengan serta merta masuk ke tahapan ketiga untuk menjadi perguruan tinggi penelitian, apa lagi kalau penelitian itu menghasilkan temuan ilmiah yang canggih. Jalan menuju perguruan tinggi penelitian perlu dirintas melalui penelitian yang belum berskala temuan ilmiah yang canggih. Diperlukan latihan penelitian yang cukup banyak di perguruan tinggi sebelum perguruan tinggi itu dapat dikategorikan sebagai perguruan tinggi penelitian atau research university.

    Latihan penelitian demikian dapat diambil dari masalah yang muncul di hilir ketika kita menatap dari siklus dari hulu ke hilir. Tidak saja penelitian itu dapat memperkaya pengetahuan kita di hulu, malainkan penelitian itu berguna untuk meningkatkan mutu produksi di hilir. Peningkatan mutu produksi di hilir meningkatkan juga kemampuan kita di bidang rekacipta.

    Lambat laun ketika kemampuan kita di bidang penelitian dan rekacipta sudah cukup tinggi maka pada saat itulah kita mencoba untuk memasuki tahapan ketiga dan menjadi perguruan tinggi penghasil ilmu dan rekacipta yang canggih. Pada saat itu, perguruan tinggi kita menjadi pemasok ilmu baru dan rekacipta baru ke forum dunia.

    Penelitian dan rekacipta dapat saja dilaksanakan melalui kerja sama dengan perguruan tinggi internasional. Namun kerja sama ini akan efektif jika pelaksanaannya berlangsung dua arah yakni ada yang kita terima dan ada juga yang kita berikan. Sampai sekarang yang menjadi masalah di dalam kerja sama dengan perguruan tinggi luar negeri adalah apa yang dapat kita berikan kepada mereka. Karena itu kerja sama ini akan efektif apabila kita telah memiliki kemampuan penelitian dan rekacipta yang meliputi hulu dan hilir di bidang ilmu.


    PENGEMBANGAN  PENJAMINAN MUTU PENDIDIKAN

    Oleh Ditjen Dikti, 12.12.2010

    http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/22140170/215431103/name/materi_tqcs_des_gst_htn_shs.doc

    Fenomena yang terjadi saat ini  ialah adanya kesadaran pengembangan mutu pendidikan di Indonesia yang semakin meningkat. Hal ini terjadi pada pendidikan dasar, menengah dan pendidikan tinggi. Salah satu faktor yang membangkitkan kesadaran tersebut ialah adanya ketentuan pada  PP 19 pasal 91 bahwa setiap satuan pendidikan wajib melakukan penjaminan mutu pendidikan.

    Dengan ketentuan wajib tersebut banyak sekali satuan pendidikan dengan serta-merta membentuk lembaga penjaminan mutu. Tentu pembentukan lembaga tersebut  dapat menunjang pelaksanaan penjaminan mutu namun perlu diluruskan bahwa dalam PP 19 tersebut yang wajib adalah melakukan penjaminan mutu pendidikan  bukan membentuk lembaga panjaminan mutu.

    Artinya penjaminan mutu dapat juga dilakukan secara melekat atau embeded dengan struktur organisasi yang telah ada. Bentuk penjaminan mutu yang melekat tersebut cocok untuk perguruan tinggi dengan keterbatasan tertentu misalnya SDM atau juga perguruan tinggi yang mempunyai kesadaran budaya mutu yang telah sangat tinggi sehingga segenap sivitas akademika akan memberikan yang terbaik untuk pelayanan pelanggan.

    DITJEN Dikti meningkatkan pengembangan panjaminan mutu dengan strategi membuat kategori terhadap perguruan tinggi indonesia dengan memalukan evaluasi implemantesi penjeminan mutu perguruan tinggi yang hasilnya sebagai berikut:

    1. kategori 1. Perguruan tinggi yang baru akan mulai mengembangkan penjaminan mutu,
    2. kategori 2. Perguruan tinggi yang dalam proses awal mengembangkan penjaminan mutu dan
    3. kategori 3. Perguruan tinggi yang telah mengembangkan penjaminan mutu pendidikan dengan baik ( merupakan good practices).

    Langkah awal adalah diseminasi panjaminan mutu pendidikan bagi perguruan tinggi Bagi perguruan tinggi yang akan mulai mengembangkan penjaminan mutu, Kegiatan diseminasi ini dilakukan dengan kerjasama beberapa perguruan tinggi seperti UGM, ITB , UI, IPB, UNPAR dll serta beberapa tenaga ahli dalam pengembangan penjaminan mutu.

    Langkah kedua adalah kegiatan pelatihan terutama bagi perguruan tinggi pada kategori 2 yaitu yang telah masuk proses pengembangan penjaminan mutu namun mesih menghadapi beberapa kendala, dengan pelatihan tersebut diharapkan penngembangan penjaminan mutu akan lebih cepat.

    Selanjutnya bagi perguruan tinggi kategori 3 dilakukan intensif technical assistance (ITA), pada kegiatan ini antar perguruan tinggi dipandu untuk saling berbagi praktek baik sehingga masing-masing dapat segera dapat menciptakan budaya mutu dengan optimal sesuai dengan kekhasan serta kondisinya masing-masing.

    Bersamaan dengan kegiatan tersebut sesuatu yang diharapkan dalam pengembangan penjaminan mutu pendidikan telah terjadi yaitu munculnya arus informasi serta pengetahuan  antar perguruan tinggi  dalam berbagai kategori  perguruan tinggi tersebut. Hal ini dapat dilihat dengan berbagai permintaan pelatihan, kunjungan maupun magang yang terjadi di sebagian perguruan tinggi kategori 3 dan 2.

    Dengan semangat berbagi ini semoga pengembangan penjaminan mutu pendidikan semakin baik dan budaya mutu serta budaya berbagi (willingness to share) dalam berbagai hal positif semakin mewarnai kehidupan bangsa kita. (GST)

    Summary implementasi AMI S1 (TQCS Des 2010)

    Tanpa kita sadari AMI untuk prodi S1 tahun 2010 ini telah memasuki siklus yang ke tujuh. Hal ini merupakan suatu proses penjaminan mutu yang relatif lama dibanding prodi S2, S3 maupun Sekolah Vokasi. Banyak tantangan yang kita hadapi bersama baik secara teknis maupun sumberdaya, lebih-lebih pada siklus ke tujuh ini standard yang diterapkan tidak saja mengacu pada BAN-PT tetapi telah mulai dicoba mengadopsi standard dari ISO 9001:2008 maupun ASEAN University Network (AUN).

    Proses pengisian Evaluasi Diri Program Studi (EDPS) maupun penyiapan dokumen memerlukan usaha yang lebih tinggi dibanding tahun-tahun sebelumnya, tetapi kita wajib bersyukur karena prodi-prodi di lingkungan UGM memiliki semangat yang tinggi untuk mewujudkan visi-misi yang dicanangkan UGM yaitu World Class Research University (WCRU). Sampai artikel ini ditulis (30 Nopember 2010) sudah 70% prodi selesai melakukan audit, 13% sedang melakukan audit dan 17% sedang merencanakan pelaksanaan audit.

    Diharapkan sampai pertengahan bulan Desember semua prodi S1 telah melakukan audit, hal ini diperlukan karena masih ada beberapa tahapan yang perlu dilalui untuk terpenuhinya satu siklus Sistem Penjaminan Mutu Perguruan Tingga (SPM-PT), diantaranya rapat kajiulang managemen tingkat prodi maupun tingkat universitas sebelum disusun standard baru.

    Beberapa kendala yang dihadapi dalam pelaksanaan AMI kali ini meliputi tingginya aktifitas Prodi sehingga sangat sulit untuk menyediakan waktu untuk menyiapkan dokumen kelengkapan EDPS, kesibukan para auditor sehingga dirasa sangat susah untuk menyediakan waktu secara bersamaan dalam melaksanakan rapat pembukaan, audit sistem, audit kepatuhan dan pertemuan penutup, dan tingginya variasi pemahaman tata cara audit oleh para auditor sehingga relatif menyulitkan dalam menentukan status temuan.

    Namun demikian, ketekunan dan semangat yang tinggi merupakan modal dasar yang baik bagi Universitas Gadjah Mada dalam mewujudkan slogan Ginöng Pratidino. Htn.

    AMI Sekolah Vokasi: Kelengkapan Dokumen

    Pada tahun 2010, AMI Sekolah Vokasi UGM merupakan siklus 1. Audit difokuskan pada kelengkapan dokumen akademik dan mutu.  Tujuan audit  AMI Sekolah Vokasi adalah:

    1. memastikan adanya dokumen, implementasi, dan rekaman mutu butir-butir mutu,
    2. memastikan konsistensi penjabaran kurikulum dan silabus dengan spesifikasi prodi, tujuan pendidikan, dan kompetensi lulusan,
    3. memastikan konsistensi perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan evaluasi proses pembelajaran terhadap pencapaian kurikulum dan silabus,
    4. memastikan kepatuhan kepatuhan perencanaan, pelaksanaan, dan evaluasi proses pembelajaran terhadap MP dan IK prodi,
    5. memastikan kecukupan penyediaan sarana prasarana dan sumber daya pembelajaran, serta
    6. memetakan peluang peningkatan mutu prodi.

    Audit berfokus pada kelengkapan dokumen akademik dan dokumen mutu, Dokumen akademik terdiri atas visi & misi, spesifikasi prodi, kompetensi lulusan, kurikulum & peta kurikulum, dan perencanaan pembelajaran (RPKPS) sedangkan dokumen mutu terdiri atas Manual Prosedur (.MP), Instruksi Kerja, dan Borang.

    Pada saat audit terdapat temuan-temuan terkait dengan ketidaklengkapan dokumen.  Temuan tersebut terkait dengan kelengkapan dokumen yang tercantum pada butir-butir mutu.

    1. Pada butir 1, misalnya ditemukan ada prodi belum melengkapi dokumen yang menyatakan tahapan pencapaian sasaran.
    2. Dokumen  untuk mendukung butir 2,  antara lain ditemukan belum adanya dokumen notulen hasil rapat pleno prodi, SK Penjaminan Mutu, dokumen monitoring evaluasi pelaksanaan praktikum, dan pembelajaran.
    3. Sementara contoh dokumen yang belum dimiliki oleh prodi Sekolah Vokasi UGM pada butir 3, misalnya dokumen layanan mahasiswa, evaluasi kompetensi, dan dokumen tracer study.
    4. Pada butir 4, antara lain ditemukan  tidak ada dokumen bukti penghargaan hibah atau prestasi baik dosen maupun mahasiswa.
    5. Untuk mendukung mutu butir 5, prodi pada umumnya belum memiliki dokumen kegiatan PKL, perbaikan kurikulum  belum secara formal didukung oleh dokumen.
    6. Dokumen keluhan mahasiswa belum didokumentasikan oleh beberapa prodi.
    7. Pada butir 7,  ditemukan belum terdokumentasikannya artikel, penelitian, dan pengabdian masyarakat yang dihasilkan dosen atau mahasiswa.

    Sebagian besar butir-butir yang terdapat pada EDPS belum dilengkapi bukti dokumen. Prodi-prodi Sekolah Vokasi UGM disarankan untuk melengkapi dokumen-dokumen yang belum tersedia sehingga diharapkan pada siklus 2 terjadi peningkatan kualitas GINONG PRATI DINO Setiap hari selalu ada peningkatan mutu  (SHS)


     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 2:30 PM on 2012/05/15 Permalink  

    The Bluffing War Game of United States and Iran in Hormuz

    By Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 15 May 2012, 14.30

    The bluffing war game was reignited again with the release of European Council conclusions on Iran dated 1 December 2011, European Council’s INTENTIONS TO reinforce restrictive measures concerning Iran dated 1 December 2011.

    Some FactSheet of The European Union and Iran:

    1. 20120124, http://www.iranwatch.org/international/EU/eu-council-factsheet-euandiran-012412.pdf
    2. 20120130, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/12/st05/st05555-re01.en12.pdf
    3. 20120323, http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/foraff/127511.pdf

    The European Sanctions on Iran:

    1. 20100617, EU approves new sanctions against Iran, http://www.eu-un.europa.eu/articles/en/article_9871_en.htm
    2. 20120123, Iran: New EU sanctions target sources of finance for nuclear programme, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/foraff/127444.pdf
    3. 20120306, European Union Restrictive measures (sanctions) in force, (measures adopted in the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy) Previous update: 18.1.2012, http://www.eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/docs/measures_en.pdf
    4. 20120315, Council elaborates EU sanctions against Iran, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/128959.pdf
    5. 20120323, EU sanctions against Iran: full effect as of tomorrow, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/129213.pdf
    6. 20120323, Human rights violations: Council tightens sanctions against Iran, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/129215.pdf
    7. 20120323, Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:088:0001:0112:EN:PDF

    As a retaliation, Iran is claiming to uphold its right with the UNCLOS, Geneva Convention of 1958 and that of Jamaica 1982: Iran is entitled and able to close the Strait to all the oil tankers, even ships carrying commercial or military goods, if it is deprived of exporting its oil.

    Geneva Convention 1958 (Art. 14-23) and Jamaica Convention 1982 (Art. 17-37) dealing with the legal system of the international waterways, coastal waters, and the right of ship passage, some of which are argued in the following:

    1. Art. 14 of Geneva Convention 1958 reads: “ships of all States, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.”
    2. In Para. 4, it is cited: “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State”.
    3. Para. 1, Art. 16 states:” The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent”.
    4. Para. 3, Art. 16 stipulates: “the coastal State may, without discrimination amongst foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security”.
    5. Art. 17-23, The Jamaica Convention of 1982 repeats the same content of Geneva Convention with minor changes.

    As predicted, as of 20 March 2012, the US exempted 10 European Union countries and Japan from U.S. economic sanctions. The humiliated and drinking wife, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton granted waivers to Belgium, Britain, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Japan, meaning that banks and other financial institutions based there will not be hit with penalties under U.S. law for a renewable period of 180 days.

    The sins of the Father Uncle Sam:

    1. The US is the only thug using nukes against mankind during ww2 and lot’s of chemical agents in Vietnam and Iran-Iraq war.
    2. The US loves to leave Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and Afghanistan as killing fields.
    3. The US is the trouble maker,blood shedder, and destabilizing  agent to the world.

    Read other highly related articles:

    1. Calculating the magnitude of world’s mobile war machines of present day, aka United States’ Hostile War Intentions, a full-fledged photo collection of world’s aircraft carriers, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/calculating-the-magnitude-of-worlds-mobile-war-machines-of-present-day/
    2. The Blunt Oil Embargo and Other International Sanctions Measures of European Union, United Nations, and other United States’ Puppy Dog Countries to Iran’s National Interests, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/the-blunt-international-sanctions-measures-to-irans-national-interests/
    3. The Pressing Measures of European Union against Iranian Nuclear Program, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/the-pressing-measures-of-european-union-against-iranian-nuclear-program/
    4. The Jews have been up and against Iran, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/the-jews-have-been-up-and-against-iran/
    5. An Act of War, A Jewish Way to Wage War: A Terror by Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientists, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/an-act-of-war-a-jewish-way-to-wage-war-a-terror-by-killing-iranian-nuclear-scientists/
    6. Blame it on Iran, The Silly Plot of US Government to Assassinate Saudi Ambassador to the US, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/blame-it-on-iran-the-silly-plot-of-us-government-to-assassinate-saudi-ambassador-to-the-us/
    7. Another Debauchery Humiliating the US Military Institutions under the aegis of US Secret Service, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/another-debauchery-humiliating-the-us-military-institutions-under-the-aegis-of-us-secret-service/
    8. The Russia is advancing toward Syria, guarding the main entry point for the US to infiltrate the West Asia, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-russia-is-advancing-toward-syria-guarding-the-main-entry-point-for-the-us-to-infiltrate-the-west-asia/
    9. Asia, A Soon-To-Be War Zone for the United States, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/asia-a-soon-to-be-war-zone-for-the-united-states/

    The references:

    1. 201112141454, Iran has the legal right to close the Strait of Hormuz
    2. 20111229014829, US warns Iran against closing Hormuz oil route
    3. 201112290225, US’ Fifth Fleet threatens Iran over Strait of Hormuz
    4. 20111229160336, U.S. Fifth Fleet says won’t allow Hormuz disruption
    5. 201112291904, US navy crosses Strait of Hormuz after Iranian oil threats
    6. 20120104, Iran Won’t Close the Strait of Hormuz
    7. 20120105, Iran’s Dangerous Bluster over the Strait of Hormuz
    8. 20120105, Iran’s Threat to Close Strait of Hormuz Isn’t Entirely Empty
    9. 20120107, Is Iran legally permitted to close the Strait of Hormuz?
    10. 201201081549, Iran says it will close Strait of Hormuz if crude exports blocked
    11. 201204230243, Strait of Hormuz

    http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/en/news/All/bodyView/18842/index.html

    Iran has the legal right to close the Strait of Hormuz

    Editorial by Hossein Shariatmadari for Keyhan Newspaper, 14 Wednesday December 2011  14:54

    A- All of the late Imam Khomeini’s statements and adopted positions reveal that he instructed using a “first strike” strategy in the challenge with arrogant powers, and argued that whenever an enemy prepares itself for an attack, whether military or economic, with the claimed purpose of invading the rights of a nation or its national sovereignty and goes beyond the empty threats and emotional rants and propaganda, the most effective solution is to begin the first strike, not hesitating to defend against the attack.

    Here some excerpts from the adopted positions by the Imam are given to illustrate the matter:

    In recalling a memory of Shahid Modarres, the Imam refers to the pleading of some rural people beaten by the mercenaries of a Khan, and Modarres wanted to assist them in complaining against the Khan and his mercenaries, saying: “Beat them so that they complain of you, do not be beaten to complain.” [Imam’s Book, Vol. 8 P. 138].

    In the last years of the imposed war, after the Iraqi military– in spite of the financial, political and military support of the US and Europe– had been paralyzed, the US announced, of course with the pretext of providing maritime security in the Persian Gulf and facilitating oil exports, that it sent its warships, not concealing the fact that they headed to the region to support the Iraqi army.

    Informed about this issue, some of the wartime authorities devised a plan to defend against a possible US attack and delivered it to the Imam for any expedient amendments. “If it is up to me”, the Imam said, “I’d target any US warship entering the Persian Gulf with missiles.”

    After the publication of the obscene book “The Satanic Verses”, an introduction to subsequent offenses against Islam and the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the Imam issued his famous historical religious verdict that the assassination of Salman Rushdie was a religious obligation and whoever was killed in doing so was a martyr. It is beating the snake’s head with a stone right after its exit from the hole.

    Such examples can also be seen in the statements of the Supreme Leader: the order to resume the activities of the UCF factory of Isfahan after the London meeting, later proved to be suspended for a wasted opportunity and what deprived Iran from peaceful nuclear energy, and also the resumption of all suspended nuclear activities and their extension, his ignoring the consequent threats of the US and its allies– regrettably faced with the self-deprecation of Iranian authorities, etc.

    B- It is noteworthy to give some of statistics as factual proof:
    1- The Strait of Hormuz is the only waterway for the eight Persian Gulf neighbor countries;
    2- On average every ten minutes a giant ship passes through the waterway;
    3- More than 40 percent of oil requirements of countries is provided from the Persian Gulf;
    4- The export of nearly 90 percent of the Persian Gulf’s oil is promoted through the strait, as the ocean liners carrying oil can find no passages but that of Hormuz;
    5- Weapons purchased by the Persian Gulf countries and weapons of European countries are transferred to destinations through the Strait; and
    6- The US EIA has predicted that the volume of exports through the Hormuz Strait will increase up to 30-35 million barrels per day by 2020.

    Preparing the full list of factors making the Strait the most important and most strategic waterway of the world will take a long time.

    C- The desperation of the US and its allies in the face of the regional Islamic revolutions, the subsequent fall of the puppet dictators, the exceptional financial and economic crisis, the ”Occupy Wall Street “ anti-capitalism movement, the accelerated fall of Israel on a dropping arc, and the realization of the US and European strategists that

    the long wave of the current world movements have taken Islamic Iran as the model, all and all have made them devise continued plots against Iran; the latest example is the oil boycott against Iran introduced during recent weeks in the joint strategic negotiations between the US and the EU.

    It is also noteworthy that recent reports show the enemy’s fear about the fragile consequences of boycotting Iranian oil for the US, the EU and other industrial allies of the West; consequently the mentioned project has been halted in the US Congress after the approval of the Senate and hushed in the EU ministry of foreign affairs in December,

    and subsequently the recent meeting of the EU authorities in Brussels, but the enemies should know that they do not have all the pieces of the checkerboard and Iran, through referring to Geneva Convention of 1958 and that of Jamaica 1982, whose subject is the legal system of the international waterways and the passage right of ships, is

    entitled and able to close the Strait to all the oil tankers, even ships carrying commercial or military goods, if it is deprived of exporting its oil. However, in the illustrated situation, it is not reasonable to open the Strait in Iranian territorial waters for exporting oil to the recognized archenemies of Iran.

    D- Geneva Convention 1958 (Art. 14-23) and Jamaica Convention 1982 (Art. 17-37) deal with coastal waters and the right of ship passage, some of which are argued in the following:
    1- Art. 14 of Geneva Convention 1958 reads: “ships of all States, whether coastal or not, shall enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea.”
    2- In Para. 4, it is cited: “Passage is innocent so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal State”.
    3- Para. 1, Art. 16 states:” The coastal State may take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent”.
    4- Para. 3, Art. 16 stipulates: “the coastal State may, without discrimination amongst foreign ships, suspend temporarily in specified areas of its territorial sea the innocent passage of foreign ships if such suspension is essential for the protection of its security”.
    5- Art. 17-23, The Jamaica Convention of 1982 repeats the same content of Geneva Convention with minor changes.

    E- First, only ships are entitled to pass through the Strait which are recognized as innocent for the national security, good order, welfare and rights and based on the two conventions– recognition of this innocence is given to the costal country, here Iran. If the import of Iranian oil is boycotted by the US, the EU countries and Asian allies such as Japan, would the passage of their ships be considered innocent?

    Absolutely not, as their passage helps the enemy become capable in threatening the country’s security. Passage of ships carrying weapons from the boycotters to other Gulf countries in the same way and based on the Geneva and Jamaica Conventions is against Iran’s national security and closing the Strait to them is Iran’s absolute right.

    F- Para. 4, Art. 16 of the Geneva Convention of 1958, in addition to recognizing the rights of coastal countries to ban the passage of assumedly harmful ships, stipulates that before making this decision, it is necessary to notify the public, namely the international arena. The question is why does Iran not announce its decision to close the Strait based on the rights given by Para.4 Art. 16?

    I think, as evidence shows, if Iran wants to close the Strait, it is necessary to announce it in advance at the international level.


    http://news.yahoo.com/us-warns-iran-against-closing-hormuz-oil-route-173312409.html

    US warns Iran against closing Hormuz oil route

    By ALI AKBAR DAREINI | AP – 18 hrs ago, 29.12.2011 01:48:29

    TEHRAN, Iran (AP) — The U.S. warned Iran Wednesday that it will not tolerate any disruption of naval traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran’s navy chief said the Islamic Republic is capable of closing the vital oil route if the West imposes new sanctions targeting Tehran’s oil exports.

    Iran’s Adm. Habibollah Sayyari told state-run Press TV that closing the strait, which is the only sea outlet for the crucial oil fields in and around the Persian Gulf, “is very easy” for his country’s naval forces.

    It was the second such warning by Iran in two days, reflecting Tehran’s concern that the West is about to impose new sanctions that could hit the country’s biggest source of revenue, its oil sector. On Tuesday, Vice President Mohamed Reza Rahimi threatened to close the strait if the West imposes such sanctions.

    In response, the Bahrain-based U.S. 5th Fleet’s spokeswoman warned that any disruption at the strait “will not be tolerated.” The spokeswoman, Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, said the U.S. Navy is “always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.” With concern growing over a possible drop-off in Iranian oil supplies if sanctions are imposed, a senior Saudi oil official said Gulf Arab nations are ready to offset any loss of Iranian crude.

    That reassurance led to a drop in world oil prices. In New York, benchmark crude fell 77 cents to $100.57 a barrel in morning trading. Brent crude fell 82 cents to $108.45 a barrel in London.

    Western nations are growing increasingly impatient with Iran over its nuclear program. The U.S. and its allies have accused Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its program is geared toward generating electricity and producing medical radioisotopes to treat cancer patients.

    The U.S. Congress has passed a bill banning dealings with the Iran Central Bank, and President Barack Obama has said he will sign it despite his misgivings. Critics warn it could impose hardships on U.S. allies and drive up oil prices. The bill could impose penalties on foreign firms that do business with Iran’s central bank. European and Asian nations import Iranian oil and use its central bank for the transactions.

    Iran is the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, with an output of about 4 million barrels of oil a day. It relies on oil exports for about 80 percent of its public revenues. Iran has adopted an aggressive military posture in recent months in response to increasing threats from the U.S. and Israel that they may take military action to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

    The navy is in the midst of a 10-day drill in international waters near the strategic oil route. The exercises began Saturday and involve submarines, missile drills, torpedoes and drones. The war games cover a 1,250-mile (2,000-kilometer) stretch of sea off the Strait of Hormuz, northern parts of the Indian Ocean and into the Gulf of Aden near the entrance to the Red Sea as a show of strength and could bring Iranian ships into proximity with U.S. Navy vessels in the area.

    Iranian media are describing how Iran could move to close the strait, saying the country would use a combination of warships, submarines, speed boats, anti-ship cruise missiles, torpedoes, surface-to-sea missiles and drones to stop ships from sailing through the narrow waterway.

    Iran’s navy claims it has sonar-evading submarines designed for shallow waters of the Persian Gulf, enabling it to hit passing enemy vessels. A closure of the strait could temporarily cut off some oil supplies and force shippers to take longer, more expensive routes that would drive oil prices higher. It also potentially opens the door for a military confrontation that would further rattle global oil markets.

    Iran claimed a victory this month when it captured an American surveillance drone almost intact. It went public with its possession of the RQ-170 Sentinel to trumpet the downing as a feat of Iran’s military in a complicated technological and intelligence battle with the U.S. American officials have said that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate the drone malfunctioned.

    Additional reporting from Adam Schreck in Dubai, UAE.


    http://rt.com/usa/news/us-iran-strait-hormuz-863/

    US’ Fifth Fleet threatens Iran over Strait of Hormuz

    Published: 29 December, 2011, 02:25
    Edited: 29 December, 2011, 17:15

    Tensions between the US and Iran have all but reached a breaking point with a naval standoff moments away from occurring in the Strait of Hormuz. Following rumors of a budding nuclear program in the works from Tehran, American authorities attempted to infiltrate Iran, most notable with a filed stealth surveillance mission that ended with a US spy drone being downed, recovered and decoded by overseas authorities.

    After Iran mocked America for the country’s inability to manage and command their own aircraft, the European Union fired back in recent days by threatening sanctions against Iran. In response, overseas authorities say that they would respond by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, a notable channel in the Persian Gulf that serves as a key component in Iran’s oil export exhibitions.

    America, who has made it no secret that she’s a fan of oil, says it won’t let Iran get away with shutting down the strait — and the US has thousands of marines on the ready to back up its bark. While tensions between the two countries have been tight for years, the standoff on the brink of battle could finally bring both nations to loggerheads as word of an all-out war between the two countries has continuously been rumored.

    “Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations: any disruption will not be tolerated,” US Fifth Fleet spokeswoman Lt Rebecca Rebarich tells the Associated Press. At its narrowest point, the strait is barely 30 miles wide and is bordered by Iran to the north and the United Arab Emirates to the South.

    Even if its thousands of miles away from America, Lt Rebarich adds that the US Navy is “…always ready to counter malevolent actions to ensure freedom of navigation.” In recent weeks, the US has increased military presence in the vicinity of Iran, allegedly installing troops in Pakistan and Afghanistan and arming the UAE with weaponry that could crush any barracks or nuclear facilities across the strait.

    The mobilization of the Fifth Fleet adds to that arsenal already on the ready an army of more than 15,000 men on over 20 ships and aircraft. Iran warns that it could shut down the strait in a heartbeat, however.

    “Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran’s armed forces is really easy … or as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water,” Iran’s navy chief Habibollah Sayyari tells the state’s Press TV this week. In the meantime, Sayyari says “we don’t need to shut it,” but could be waiting for America to make the next move.


    http://news.yahoo.com/u-fifth-fleet-says-wont-allow-hormuz-disruption-080713582.html

    U.S. Fifth Fleet says won’t allow Hormuz disruption

    By Parisa Hafezi and Humeyra Pamuk | Reuters – 4 hrs ago, 29.12.2011 16:03:36

    TEHRAN/DUBAI (Reuters) – The U.S. Fifth Fleet said on Wednesday it would not allow any disruption of traffic in the Strait of Hormuz, after Iran threatened to stop ships moving through the world’s most important oil route. “Anyone who threatens to disrupt freedom of navigation in an international strait is clearly outside the community of nations; any disruption will not be tolerated,” the Bahrain-based fleet said in an e-mail.

    Iran, at loggerheads with the West over its nuclear program, said on Tuesday it would stop the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz in the Gulf if sanctions were imposed on its crude exports. “Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran’s armed forces is really easy … or as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water,” Iran’s navy chief Habibollah Sayyari told Iran’s English-language Press TV on Wednesday.

    “But right now, we don’t need to shut it …,” said Sayyari, who is leading 10 days of exercises in the Strait. Analysts say that Iran could potentially cause havoc in the Strait of Hormuz, a strip of water separating Oman and Iran, which connects the biggest Gulf oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, with the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. At its narrowest point, it is 21 miles across.

    But its navy would be no match for the firepower of the Fifth Fleet which consists of 20-plus ships supported by combat aircraft, with 15,000 people afloat and another 1,000 ashore. A spokesperson for the Fifth Fleet said in response to queries from Reuters that, it “maintains a robust presence in the region to deter or counter destabilizing activities,” without providing further details.

    A British Foreign Office spokesman called the Iranian threat “rhetoric,” saying: “Iranian politicians regularly use this type of rhetoric to distract attention from the real issue, which is the nature of their nuclear program.”

    SANCTIONS

    Tension has increased between Iran and the West after EU foreign ministers decided three weeks ago to tighten sanctions on the world’s No. 5 crude exporter, but left open the idea of an embargo on Iranian oil. The West accuses Iran of seeking a nuclear bomb; Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. The Iranian threat pushed up international oil prices on Tuesday although they slipped back on Wednesday in thin trade.

    “The threat by Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz supported the oil market yesterday, but the effect is fading today as it will probably be empty threats as they cannot stop the flow for a longer period due to the amount of U.S. hardware in the area,” said Thorbjoern bak Jensen, an oil analyst with Global Risk Management.

    The Strait of Hormuz is “the world’s most important oil chokepoint,” according to the U.S. Department of Energy. About 40 percent of all traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic waterway. The State Department said there was an “element of bluster” in the threat, but underscored that the United States, whose warships patrol in the area, would support the free flow of oil.

    France urged Iran on Wednesday to adhere to international law that allows all ships freedom of transit in the Strait. Iran’s international isolation over its defiant nuclear stance is hurting the country’s oil-dependent economy, but Iranian officials have shown no sign of willingness to compromise.

    Iran dismisses the impact of sanctions, saying trade and other measures imposed since the 1979 Islamic revolution toppled the U.S.-backed shah have made the country stronger. During a public speech in Iran’s western province of Ilam on Wednesday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implied Tehran had no intention of changing course.

    “We will not yield to pressure to abandon our rights … The Iranian nation will not withdraw from its right (to nuclear technology) even one iota because of the pressures,” said Ahmadinejad, whose firm nuclear stance has stoked many ordinary Iranians’ sense of national dignity.

    Some Iranian oil officials have admitted that foreign sanctions were hurting the key energy sector that was in desperate need of foreign investment. Though four rounds of the U.N. sanctions do not forbid the purchase of Iranian oil, many international oil firms and trading companies have stopped trading with Iran.

    “SHOWING THEIR TEETH”

    The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if sanctions fail to rein in Iran’s nuclear work. An Iranian analyst who declined to be named said the leadership could not reach a compromise with the West over its nuclear activities as it “would harm its prestige among its core supporters.”

    As a result, he said, “Iranian officials are showing their teeth to prevent a military strike.” But he added that closing the Strait of Hormuz would harm Iran’s economy, undermining the Iranian leadership ahead of a parliamentary election in March. The election will be the first litmus test of the clerical establishment’s popularity since the 2009 disputed presidential vote, that the opposition says was rigged to secure Ahmadinejad’s re-election.

    The vote was followed by eight months of anti-government street protests and created a deepening political rift among the hardline rulers. With the opposition leaders under house arrest since February and the main reformist political parties banned since the vote, Iranian hardline rulers are concerned a low turnout would question the establishment’s legitimacy.

    Frustration is simmering among lower- and middle-class Iranians over Ahmadinejad’s economic policies. Prices of most consumer goods have risen substantially and many Iranians struggle to make ends meet.

    (Writing by Parisa Hafezi and Myra MacDonald; Editing by Alison Williams)


    http://rt.com/news/usa-navy-iran-oil-903/

    US navy crosses Strait of Hormuz after Iranian oil threats

    Published: 29 December, 2011, 19:04
    Edited: 29 December, 2011, 22:38

    An Iranian warplane has spotted a US aircraft carrier during Tehran’s ongoing navy drill in the Persian Gulf, reports IRNA news agency. The US fleet’s maneuvers come after Iran threatened to block the oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz. ­Tehran’s surveillance jet has shot a video and pictures of the American carrier, which was later identified as John C. Stennis. The US Fifth Fleet keeps a military base in Bahrain, while the ship was spotted in the Gulf of Oman after crossing the Strait of Hormuz.

    “An Iranian vessel and surveillance plane have tracked, filmed and photographed a US aircraft carrier as it was entering the Gulf of Oman from the Persian Gulf,” said Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, Iran’s navy chief, as cited by the official IRNA. “The foreign fleet will be warned by Iranian forces if it enters the area of the drill,” added Sayyari.

    The US navy confirmed on Thursday the aircraft carrier John C. Stennis had indeed headed for the Gulf of Oman, accompanied by guided-missile cruiser Mobile Bay and several other vessels. But that was “a pre-planned, routine transit” as the group was to provide air support to allied troops in Afghanistan, said Lt. Rebecca Rebarich, the spokesperson for the US Fifth Fleet.

    Since Saturday, Iran has been conducting a 10-day navy drill in international waters near the Strait of Hormuz, the gateway for up to 40 per cent of world’s oil supply with the US and EU among major customers. Tehran promised to block the strait if Washington sanctions Iran’s oil exports out of suspicions that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

    The US vowed not to allow Tehran to choke off the vital oil route. While Tehran seems to be reaffirming its naval might in the region, Reuters reports all of its marine capabilities cannot be compared with the US Fifth Fleet located in the Persian Gulf, which lists over 20 ocean-range warships and 15,000 personnel.

    Tensions between Iran and the West freshened in November, when the International Atomic Energy Agency released its report on Iran’s nuclear activities raising concerns the Persian country is developing weapons. Since then, the US has repeatedly said they do not exclude a military strike on Iran if they obtain firm intelligence of Iran’s nuclear program going military.

    Robert Naiman, the policy director at the Just Foreign Policy think-tank, says Tehran had to call navy maneuvers at this time as otherwise it would have been perceived as a country unable to defend itself. The embargo on Iran’s oil exports proposed by the US necessitates an active response.

    “It is understood in the international political discourse that an embargo is an act of war. If it really is the policy pursued by the US and Western Europe to try to cut off Iran’s oil exports, then that is an act of war. It would not make sense for Iran to roll over,” Naiman told RT.

    TheTruth, January 04, 2012, 20:42

    America is looking for a push to invade Iran for stealing oil .Just like they invaded Iraq for oil by accusing them that they harboring nukes.But Now we know that it was just an American false propaganda for oil. USA now leaving Iraq by turning it in to a killing field.USA has no wright to finger point any country over nuclear issues becoz they are the only thugs to use nukes against mankind during ww2 and lot’s of chemical agents in Vietnam.

    Not only that Americas war killing’s and resulting collateral damages(by Drones etc) are far more staggering in total, than any other crimes in the world.not only that their technology is broadly used for trouble making,blood shedding and destabilizing  the world.iran is not even sending their fishing boat in  to the back yard of America.

    therefore usa should stay away and no more sanctions then iran will allow free flow of traffic in Strait of Hormuz by doing that US can prevent unneeded war. becoz oil prices will go sky high which will effect everyone in the world.

    Clydealmighty, January 01, 2012, 04:32

    I think half the commentators on here are full of hate and are happy to find any reason to vent that hate. I am glad none of you have any real power.

    Peter, December 31, 2011, 14:40

    Looks like the US fleet is fleeing to  open seas before being trapped and sunked in the event of war. US carriers are WWII equipments no place for modern warfare… period

    in the AGE of missles.

    1. Tehran promised to block the strait, http://rt.com/news/iran-oil-sanctions-threat-783/
    2. US vowed not to allow Tehran to choke off the vital oil route, http://rt.com/usa/news/us-iran-strait-hormuz-863/
    3. the US has repeatedly said they do not exclude a military strike on Iran, http://rt.com/news/usa-iran-nuclear-defense-263/

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577130834200656156.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZQiosk7TWiUJ:online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577130834200656156.html+Iran+Won’t+Close+the+Strait+of+Hormuz&cd=1&hl=id&ct=clnk&gl=id&client=opera

    Iran Won’t Close the Strait of Hormuz

    By Bradley S. Russell and Max Boot, January 4, 2012

    Direct hostilities would risk retaliation against Tehran’s nuclear-weapons program. Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz last week, in response to U.S. and European Union moves to apply sanctions on its oil industry. Only 21 miles wide at its narrowest point, the strait sees the passage of roughly 28 tanker ships a day, half loaded, half empty.

    Some 17 million barrels of oil—20% of oil traded in the world—go through this chokepoint. If Iran really could close the strait, it would do great damage to the world economy. But it would also damage its own already shaky economy because Iran relies on the strait to deliver oil exports to China and other customers.

    In any case, closing the strait is not nearly as easy as Adm. Habibollah Sayari, commander of the Iranian Navy, would have it. He said that closing the strait is “as easy as drinking a glass of water.” Actually it would be about as easy as drinking an entire bucket of water in one gulp.

    Iran tried this trick before and failed miserably. In 1984, during the Iran-Iraq War, Saddam Hussein attacked Iranian oil tankers and the Iranian oil-processing facility at Kharq Island. Iran struck back by attacking Kuwaiti tankers carrying Iraqi crude and then other tankers in the Persian Gulf.

    In 1987, after years of growing disruptions in this vital waterway, President Ronald Reagan responded by offering to reflag Kuwaiti tankers with the U.S. flag and provide U.S. naval escort. Iran shied away from direct attacks on U.S. warships but continued sowing mines, staging attacks with small patrol boats, and firing a variety of missiles at tankers.

    On April 14, 1988, the guided-missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck an Iranian mine; no sailors were killed but several were injured and the ship nearly sank. The U.S. Navy responded by launching Operation Praying Mantis, its biggest surface combat action since World War II.

    Half a dozen U.S. warships in two separate Surface Action Groups moved in to destroy two Iranian oil platforms. The Iranians responded by sending armed speedboats, frigates and F-4 aircraft to fire at the U.S. warships.

    In defending themselves, the American vessels sank at least three Iranian speedboats, one gunboat and one frigate; other Iranian ships and aircraft were damaged. The only major U.S. loss occurred when a Marine Corps Sea Cobra helicopter crashed, apparently by accident, killing two crewmen.

    The war all but ended less than three months later when the guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes mistakenly fired a surface-to-air missile at an Iranian passenger airliner that it had mistaken for a fighter jet. The plane was destroyed and 290 people killed. Although this was an accident, the Iranian regime was convinced that Washington was escalating the conflict and decided to reach a truce with Iraq.

    The greatest loss suffered by U.S. forces during this whole conflict occurred in 1987 when an Iraqi aircraft fired an Exocet missile that hit the frigate USS Stark, killing 37 sailors and injuring 21. (Saddam Hussein claimed this was an accident.)

    The Iranians had little to show for their efforts: Lloyd’s of London estimated that the Tanker War resulted in damage to 546 commercial vessels and the deaths of 430 civilian mariners but many of those losses were caused by Iraq, not Iran. While these attacks temporarily disrupted the free passage of oil, they did not come close to closing the strait.

    Despite the unveiling of a new antiship cruise missile called the Qader, Iran’s conventional naval and air forces—on display during the Veleyat 90 naval exercises in the Persian Gulf which ended Monday— are still no match for the U.S. and its allies in the region.

    The U.S. alone has in the area two carrier strike groups, an expeditionary strike force (centered around an amphibious assault ship that is in essence a small aircraft carrier), and numerous land-based aircraft at bases such as Al Udied in Qatar, Al Dafra in the United Arab Emirates, and Isa Air Base in Bahrain.

    The U.S. and our Arab allies (which are equipped with a growing array of modern American-made equipment such as F-15s and F-16s) could use overwhelming force to destroy Iran’s conventional naval forces in very short order. Iran’s real ability to disrupt the flow of oil lies in its asymmetric war-fighting capacity.

    Iran has thousands of mines(and any ship that can carry a mine is by definition a mine-layer), a small number of midget submarines, thousands of small watercraft that could be used in swarm attacks, and antiship cruise missiles. If the Iranians lay mines, it will take a significant amount of time to clear them.

    It took several months to clear all mines after the Tanker War, but a much shorter period to clear safe passages through the Persian Gulf to and from oil shipping terminals. Antiship cruise missiles are mobile, yet those can also be found and destroyed. Yono submarines are short-duration threats—they eventually have to come to port for resupply, and when they do they will be sitting ducks.

    U.S. forces may take losses, as they did with the hits on the USS Stark and Samuel B. Roberts, but they will prevail and in fairly short order. The Iranians must realize that the balance of forces does not lie in their favor. By initiating hostilities they risk American retaliation against their most prized assets—their covert nuclear-weapons program.

    The odds are good, then, that the Iranians will not follow through on their saber-rattling threats. But this heated rhetoric does suggest how worried the Iranians are about the potential impact of fresh sanctions on their oil industry. All the more reason for the Europeans to proceed with those sanctions.

    Mr. Russell, a navy captain, is a visiting fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. In 2010-2011 he was chief of staff to U.S. Navy Central Command/Fifth Fleet in Bahrain. Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in national security studies at the council.


    http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/01/05/iran%E2%80%99s-dangerous-bluster-over-the-strait-of-hormuz/

    Iran’s Dangerous Bluster over the Strait of Hormuz

    by Joshua Tucker on January 5, 2012

    The following is a guest post from Caitlin Talmadge, a political scientist at George Washington University: The past week has seen rising tensions between Iran and the United States over the narrow waterway known as the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 90% of the Persian Gulf’s oil is exported each day.

    Iran’s vice president warned that “not a drop of oil” would pass through the Strait if the United States adopted tougher sanctions, and the country’s navy chief echoed the threat, claiming that “closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran’s armed forces is really easy…. Or as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water.”

    But is that right? The question is important not only as Iran completes a major 10-day naval exercise in the Gulf, but also in the broader context of recent calls for military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Any closure of the Strait of Hormuz would cause oil prices to skyrocket, and even the anticipation of such closure or of conflict there has the potential to induce serious jitters in the world oil market.

    But does Iran really have the capability to halt the flow of oil out of the Persian Gulf over a sustained period of time? I explored exactly this question in a 2008 International Security article, and the short answer is no — but both the United States and Iran should take care not to allow the current situation to escalate, as each still has the ability to impose substantial economic and military costs on the other.

    Iran does possess substantial littoral warfare capabilities, consisting primarily of mines, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, and small boats. This arsenal, combined with the Islamic Republic’s historic ability to produce highly motivated fighters, should induce a healthy respect for Iran’s ability to cause trouble in the Gulf.

    In particular, if Iran were able to engage in substantial mine-laying without being detected, it has the potential to create a thorny mine-clearing problem for the United States in the Gulf—one that could quickly lead to an outright war between the two countries. That being said, a key variable affecting Iran’s ability to disrupt traffic in the Strait is how many mines it could lay prior to detection.

    Iran’s own recent threats, combined with Fifth Fleet’s vigilance, make the sort of stealthy attack I analyzed essentially impossible in today’s environment. Additionally, tankers are resilient targets, and they can use (and have used) alternative routes in and out of the Gulf besides the narrow shipping lanes closest to Iran’s shores.

    There are also some recent signs that Iran itself understands the additional economic and political costs it would pay in the event that oil could not get out of the Strait. After all, Iran’s own economy depends on the ability to export oil and to import refined gasoline, as does the economy of one of its major international patrons, China.

    It is hard to imagine that aggression in the Strait would provoke anything but a strengthened international coalition against Iran —t hough it is possible that the regime sees domestic political benefits in the current crisis, or is intentionally using it as a way to drive up oil prices.

    For its part, the Obama administration is not spoiling for a fight in the Gulf, and the president has avoided comment on the Iranian threats. But the U.S. Navy clearly trains and prepares for operations in the Strait. Furthermore, as other analysts have noted, in the event that the United States is forced to engage in such operations, attacking targets on the Iranian mainland would become tempting.

    In some scenarios, it would be militarily necessary simply to protect mine-clearance ships or other vessels in the Strait from Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles. All of this is to say that naval confrontation in the Gulf would benefit no one. It would be bad for everyone, but worst for Iran, whose naval assets are scarce and not easily replaced—a lesson Iran learned the hard way in its last major naval confrontation with the United States, in 1988.

    With any luck, leaders in Tehran remember these realities. Certainly, their recent behavior suggests a desire to extract leverage by publicly making a threat rather than by stealthily following through on it.

    Scott Monje January 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    What might happen if Iran were to take a more “passive” approach to closing the strait, say, by scuttling several large tankers in the shipping lanes?

    North January 6, 2012 at 6:12 pm

    Well, eyeballing that map we’re looking at the most common straight for navigation being around 40 km in width and between 100-200 metres of depth. Lets assume it rounds to around 150m, you’d need 6 million square feet of sunken ships to plug that up and that’s assuming you could stack sunken ships perfectly like legos, that

    the currents wouldn’t shove them around and that shipping couldn’t easily navigate outside that ideal zone. Frankly I seriously doubt Iran’s capacity to put that kind of steel in the water and if they somehow did they’d have no way left to prevent the US (or anyone else!) from simply dredging out or blowing up the blockage.

    No, the Strait of Hormuz, though narrow in a global relative sense, is massive in an absolute sense. Building a passive blockage would be a Hoover dam dam level endevor, bigger more likely.

    louise January 6, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    The Iranians are not going to close the straits. They got nuthin. A navy? No. Any kind of ground forces and artillery to stage along the coast? No. Any kind of terrorist capabilities? I doubt it. come on folks, there is a major U.S. naval base nearby. Give up this war mongering.

    1. Caitlin Talmadge, http://web.mac.com/caitlintalmadge/Site/Home.html
    2. “not a drop of oil”, http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8674670
    3. adopted tougher sanctions, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204720204577132923798499772.html
    4. echoed the threat, http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFTRE7BR0K220111228
    5. a major 10-day naval exercise, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ML-Iran-Navy-Drill/2012/01/03/id/422801?s=al&promo_code=DD51-1
    6. recent calls for military strikes, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran
    7. jitters in the world oil market, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-in-new-provocation-threatens-us-ships/2012/01/03/gIQAzEiGZP_story.html
    8. 2008 International Security article, http://themonkeycage.org/blog/2012/01/05/iran’s-dangerous-bluster-over-the-strait-of-hormuz/UserscaitlintalmadgeDesktopDropboxHormuzIS3301_pp082-117_Talmadge.pdf
    9. Fifth Fleet’s vigilance, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45803084/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-fifth-fleet-says-wont-allow-hormuz-disruption/#.TwSz0kpJ_qQ
    10. tankers are resilient targets, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/12/the_strait_dope
    11. alternative routes, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/08/12/the_strait_dope
    12. some recent signs, http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/12/31/iran-backs-off-threat-to-close-strait-hormuz/
    13. way to drive up oil prices, http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/01/03/iran-u-s-tensions-reach-20-year-high-over-strait-of-hormuz-warning/
    14. other analysts have noted, http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1789
    15. in 1988, http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Sea-Battles-American-History/dp/0195171454

    http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/irans-threat-close-strait-hormuz-isnt-entirely-empty/47025/

    Iran’s Threat to Close Strait of Hormuz Isn’t Entirely Empty

    John Hudson, Jan 5, 2012

    Despite growing calls for President Obama to call Iran’s bluff in the Strait of Hormuz, the Islamic republic could credibly close off the waterway, according to military experts speaking to Reuters and The New York Times. On Thursday, the New York Post’s Benny Avni urged the president to “call the mullahs’ bluff” and defy the its warning for the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carrier John C. Stennis to stay out of the Gulf.

    “The Iranian on-again-off-again threat to block the major naval artery, through which a third of the world’s shipped crude oil passes daily, is an empty threat,” he said. The proclamation followed a Wednesday Wall Street Journal column by Bradley Russell and Max Boot downplaying Iran’s ability to block the strait.

    “Closing the strait is not nearly as easy as Adm. Habibollah Sayari, commander of the Iranian Navy, would have it,” they wrote. “He said that closing the strait is ‘as easy as drinking a glass of water.’ Actually it would be about as easy as drinking an entire bucket of water in one gulp.”

    Those columns, however, understate the ease in which the country could seal off the crucial waterway, according to two new reports. According to Reuters, the logistics of closing the 25 mile entrance to the Gulf play to the advantage of a country like Iran, exploiting asymmetrical warfare.

    “Should Iran’s rulers ever make good their threats to block the Straits of Hormuz, they could almost certainly achieve their aim within a matter of hours.” Making use of fishing vessels, “smart mines,” midget submarines, homing torpedoes, the news service describes a couple plausible scenarios:

    Iran is also believed to have built up fleets of perhaps hundreds of small fast attack craft including tiny suicide speedboats, learning from the example of Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tiger rebels who used such methods in a war with the government. At worst, its forces could strike simultaneously at multiple ships passing out of the Gulf, leaving a string of burning tankers and perhaps also Western warships.

    But a more likely initial scenario, many experts believe, is that it would simply declare a blockade, perhaps fire warning shots at ships and announce it had laid a minefield. “All the Iranians have to do is say they mined the strait and all tanker traffic would cease immediately,” says Jon Rosamund, head of the maritime desk at specialist publishers and consultancy IHS Jane’s.

    The Times also reiterates the country’s ability to carry out the mission. “An Iranian blockade by means of mining, airstrikes or sabotage is logistically well within Tehran’s military capabilities,” the newspaper reports. This is not to say, however, that Iran doesn’t have a huge incentive not to close the strait.

    By all accounts, a prolonged effort to close the strait would be a losing battle for the Iranian navy and, according to The Times, it would also punish Iran’s key ally China, which has heavily invested in Iran’s oil fields. Still, the increasing brinkmanship could lead to a military confrontation, analysts say.

    “I fear we may be blundering toward a crisis nobody wants,” Helima Croft, senior geopolitical strategist at Barclays Capital, tells the newspaper. “There is a peril of engaging in brinksmanship from all sides.”

    Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at jhudson@theatlantic.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.

    1. Reuters, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-iran-hormuztre8040pb-20120105,0,6375455,full.story
    2. The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/business/oil-price-would-skyrocket-if-iran-closed-the-strait.html
    3. New York Post’s Benny Avni, http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/go_ahead_bam_call_the_mullahs_bluff_hIEQPk5V7qAQdQ7Qd24rSI
    4. Wall Street Journal column by Bradley Russell and Max Boot, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204632204577130834200656156.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
    5. This Crisis with Iran Is Exactly Why We Have Oil Reserves, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/this-crisis-iran-exactly-why-we-have-oil-reserves/47094/
    6. The Navy Is Depending on Dolphins to Keep the Strait of Hormuz Open, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/militarys-weapon-against-iranian-mines-high-tech-dolphins/47384/
    7. Report: U.S. Warns Iranians Via ‘Secret’ Back Channel, http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/01/report-us-warns-iranians-secret-back-channel/47370/

    http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=217263

    Is Iran legally permitted to close the Strait of Hormuz?

    By Bahman Aghai Diba, Saturday, January 7, 2012

    The Strait of Hormuz is the narrow sea passage that connects the Persian Gulf to the Oman Sea. This is the only sea-passage for the export of oil from the Persian Gulf states. Recently, due to the revival of the possibility of new sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which may include sanctions against the purchase of oil and the sale of petroleum products to Iran, the issue of Iran’s reactions, especially the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, has turned into a hot topic.

    Some Iranian officials have recently claimed that according to the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Law of the Sea, Iran can suspend the passage from the Strait of Hormuz for the countries that impose sanctions against the Iranian oil and gas imports and exports. This is a piece on the legal, political, military and practical aspects of this issue.

    The Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has claimed time and again in the past that if it is put in serious danger it will close the Strait of Hormuz. Kayhan Newspaper, which is close to power circles in Iran, has reported in the past: “closing the Strait of Hormuz will seriously stop the flow of oil to the industrial states and they will face intolerable conditions.”

    Closing the Hormuz is going to be a two-sided weapon. Oil prices over a hundred dollars will have serious consequences for the international economy. However, Iran as an oil exporting country will be in a difficult situation if the export of oil is stopped. Iran’s government derives about 80% of its revenues and most of its foreign currency from oil sales.

    Iran is not only relying on the oil revenues for its economy, but also it is an importer of oil products. Iran does not have the capacity to produce enough gasoline for internal consumption, and it has to import a major part of its needs from other countries. However, the claims about closing the Strait of Hormuz, has several aspects:

    Political Aspect

    The Strait of Hormuz is the export channel for 40 percent of the oil production of the entire area. This means that closing the strait is a declaration of war to the other exporting countries (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain) and also to the importing states (including Japan, and the Western states that depend heavily on the oil from the area).

    Military Aspect

    From military point of view, it requires great effort to close the strait, the narrowest part of which is 34 miles wide. The Iranian forces have conducted several maneuvers aimed at closing the Strait of Hormuz during a time of crisis, and the Western forces in the region (in cooperation with the some littoral countries or independently) have conducted several maneuvers aimed at deterring such plans.

    Although Iran may have enough firepower in the region to create problems, its military power is no match for the powerful forces present in the region. The military forces of the Persian Gulf littoral states have been increasing in the last several years, and at the moment, even a small country like the UAE has a more powerful air force than Iran.

    The American navy and other forces are heavily present in the region. In fact, in April 1988, US Navy, in retaliation against the mining of sea lanes by Iran (during the Tanker Wars), destroyed almost half of the Iranian navy in several hours in Operation Praying Mantis. The French forces have a newly-established base in the area very close to the Strait of Hormuz and their main mission is to keep the Strait open.

    Legal Aspect

    It should be noted that any action by Iran to stop the flow of oil from Persian Gulf countries by blocking the strait Hormuz, attacking shipping lines, trying to blow up pipelines or the production and refinery facilities of the other countries in the region (such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan in the Caspian Sea, or Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain in the Persian Gulf), will be considered a serious violation of international laws and regulations for the concerned states.

    It would be in practice like giving them a declaration of war. At the same time, it would be a serious challenge to the interests of the major oil importing states, especially the USA. Iran has signed the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but has not ratified it. However, Iran is committed to the convention, and considers the transit passage as only for those who have ratified it (US has not).

    So in the case of these countries Iran still believes in Innocent Passage. But innocent passage in the Straits used for international navigation is different. One of the important subjects discussed during the various sessions of the UN Third Conference on the Law of the Sea was the regime of passage from the international straits such the Hormuz strait.

    The 1982 convention created and approved a new notion for passing from these straits which is called “transit passage”, and it gives more rights and freedoms to the passing ships than the previous customary regime of passage from these straits.

    According to the declaration that Iran has issued at the time of signing the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, as far as the transit passage was concerned was that the new rights were based on the contract and therefore they extended only to those who accept all commitments coming from the 1982 convention, and that it did not extend to those who are not the members.

    The Iranian concern in this case, contrary to the well-known idea that it was against the big naval countries, was also coming from its conflicts with the Arab neighboring countries that tried to undermine the rights of coastal states of such waterways as much as possible. The Iran-Iraq- war (1980-1988) had added fuel to this kind of thinking.

    During the Third UN Conference on the law of the Sea, the issue of passage from the international straits had gained special importance because:
    1. It was a matter of controversy between the countries bordering the straits and other countries especially the countries with big naval and merchant fleets.
    2. The practice of 12 mile territorial sea was recognized and supported by the countries and it added seriously to the number of international straits that were less than 24 miles and therefore entirely within the territorial limits of the bordering states.
    3. The previous customary regime of passage on the basis of 1958 convention of the territorial sea (Geneva Convention) was innocent passage. “Under the regime of innocent passage codified in Section III of the 1958 Geneva Convention, the rule is established that transit is innocent only “so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.”

    The last section of the article also requires that submarines exercising the right of innocent passage navigate on the surface, showing their flag. In Article 16 a coastal state is given the right to “take the necessary steps in its territorial sea to prevent passage which is not innocent.”

    This phraseology is nebulous enough as it stands; furthermore, the use of the word “prejudicial” suggests that an actual injury to peace, good order, or security need not be taking place for the passage to be deemed no longer innocent. If a reasonable chance exists that such injury may be in the offing, the coastal state would be in a strong position to decide that the passage is not innocent and exclude the vessel from its territorial waters.”

    The passage of the naval units from the territorial sea or in others words, extending the right of innocent passage to warships, was a controversial issue during the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea, and after the conclusion of the UNCLOS. The military issues were not in the agenda of the Third UN Conference on the Law of the Sea.

    However, during the sessions of the conference there were efforts to include subjects like the peaceful use of the oceans but they were not seriously followed. Therefore, the 1958 Convention on the territorial Sea and the 1982 UNCLOS have no clear regulations about the passage of the naval units from territorial seas.

    Iran believes that the passage of naval ships of other states from territorial waters is dependent on prior notification and by observing innocent passage requirements. Some other countries that have the same policy are Egypt, Oman and Yemen. Some Iranian politicians and academics have tried to argue that Iran has the right to close the Strait if the other countries ban its oil export and imports.

    One of them claims: “Iran believes that its likely enemies have to know that they do not possess all the chess pieces on the board. If Tehran is due to be deprived of its oil exports or faces paralyzing sanctions, the Strait of Hormuz will not be secure to tankers and ships carrying commercial goods or weapons to and from its enemies.”

    The legal reason that Iran uses to substantiate its position is the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone (1958). It should be noted that this argument has many problems, some of which are:

    1. Even if we accept that the regulations about “transit passage” as envisaged in the 1982 Law of the Sea convention, do not apply to the countries that have not joined it (this argument is rejected by many legal experts on the basis that the transit passage as mentioned the UN 1982 Convention has turned into a part of customary law and

    it is obligatory for all states, Iran has signed but not ratified the 1982 convention, and according to the law of treaties, it is under the commitment to refrain from doing anything contrary to it between the signature and ratification period), and the passage of ships from straits used for international navigation is not subject to the same kind of “innocent passage” that is mentioned in the 1958 Convention about the innocent passage from the territorial sea.

    The littoral states of straits used for international navigation do not have the right to suspend the innocent passage in such waterways.

    2. Most of the “traffic separations lines” (these are the lines usually used by the ships travelling in the area) are situated in the side of the Strait of Hormuz, which technically, i.e. according to the international law of sea, is part of Oman’s territorial waters. The Iranian forces cannot make decisions for the other part of the Strait which is technically the territorial sea of Oman.

    The writer is a PhD, International Law of the Sea.
    © Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. All rights reserved. Reprinted by arrangement.


    http://rt.com/news/iran-ready-block-strait-hormuz-361/

    Iran says it will close Strait of Hormuz if crude exports blocked

    Published: 08 January, 2012, 15:49
    Edited: 10 January, 2012, 11:55

    Tehran’s leadership has decided to order a blockade of the strategic Strait of Hormuz if the country’s oil exports are blocked, a senior Revolutionary Guard Commander said as reported by Iranian press. The strategic decision was made by Iran’s top authorities, Ali Ashraf Nouri said, as cited by the Iranian Khorasan daily.

    “The supreme authorities … have insisted that if enemies block the export of our oil, we won’t allow a drop of oil to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. This is the strategy of the Islamic Republic in countering such threats,” Nouri said. Until now, there had been no official confirmation of Iran’s military having direct orders to block the Strait.

    However, Tehran has been threatening to block the strategic waterway – one of the world’s most important oil routes – if the West slapped more sanctions on its oil exports or risked hostile military act of any kind. Meanwhile, Iran is planning a new round of “massive” naval drills codenamed The Great Prophet, which will be carried out by the country’s elite Revolutionary Guard with its own air, naval and ground forces, separate from those of the regular military.

    On Thursday, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s naval commander, Admiral Ali Fadavi, said the next round of war games would be “different” from previous ones. Iran recently held a 10-day naval exercise near the Strait of Hormuz, demonstrating its military prowess and ability to take full control of the waters if necessary.

    Tensions spiraled after the US introduced the latest round of sanctions against Iran targeting its financial and banking sector, effectively hampering Iran’s ability to settle transactions with the international consumers of its oil. The legislation already caused the Iranian currency to plunge to a historic low.

    Iran is under UN sanctions for refusing to stop its uranium enrichment program, which is – as Iranian officials claim – aimed at developing a complex civilian nuclear industry. The international community believes, though, that Iran’s nuclear program is merely a front for its ambitions to create a nuclear weapon.

    Meanwhile the EU may delay its embargo on Iranian crude oil imports, a measure aimed at complementing the US sanctions. EU members most dependent on oil imports are seeking to push back the embargo and have called for “grace periods” on existing contracts. But diplomats from different countries differed on the exact length of these grace periods.

    Diplomats from Greece, which is most dependent on Iranian oil imports, have called for a delay of 12 months, while the UK, France and the Netherlands want a maximum of 3 months. EU foreign ministers are set to meet in Brussels on January 30 to decide on how the embargo will be imposed.

    Iran is the second-largest oil producer after Saudi Arabia, among the 12 countries in OPEC, making around 3.5 million barrels a day. EU countries buy around 500,000 barrels per day, the largest share of Iran’s total 2.6 million barrel a day oil export.

    During an interview on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the United States would not tolerate the blocking of the Strait of Hormuz. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that the US would take action to reopen the Strait in the event Iran does block it.

    “They’ve invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz. We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that,” Dempsey said. Panetta also said he did not believe Iran was developing a nuclear weapon but indicated that Iran’s nuclear capabilities are what concern the US and its allies.

    Panetta and Dempsey stressed the need to continue putting diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran but also said that the US did not intend to “take any option off the table.” Asked about what the United States would do if Israel were to take out Iran’s nuclear capability on its own, Leon Panetta said the main goal would be to protect US forces in the region.

    1. Thousands of US troops deploying to Israel, http://rt.com/usa/news/us-troops-israel-iran-257/
    2. Iran ‘recommends’ US stay out of Persian Gulf, http://rt.com/news/iran-sanctions-threats-gulf-143/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz

    Strait of Hormuz

    23 April 2012 at 02:43

    Coordinates: 26°34′N 56°15′E

    The Strait of Hormuz /hɔrˈmuːz/ (Arabic: مَضيق هُرمُز‎Maḍīq Hurmuz, Persian: تَنگِه هُرمُز‎Tangeh-ye Hormoz) is a narrow, strategically important strait between the Gulf of Oman in the southeast and the Persian Gulf. On the north coast is Iran and on the south coast is the United Arab Emirates and Musandam, an exclave of Oman.

    The strait at its narrowest is 21 nautical miles (39 km) wide. It is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum-exporting Persian Gulf and is one of the world’s most strategically important choke points. Around 20% of the world’s oil, which is about 35% of seaborne traded oil, passes through the strait.

    Etymology

    The opening to the Persian Gulf was described, but not given a name, in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, a 1st-century mariner’s guide:

    “At the upper end of these Calaei islands is a range of mountains called Calon, and there follows not far beyond, the mouth of the Persian Gulf, where there is much diving for the pearl-mussel.

    To the left of the straits are great mountains called Asabon, and to the right there rises in full view another round and high mountain called Semiramis; between them the passage across the strait is about six hundred stadia; beyond which that very great and broad sea, the Persian Gulf, reaches far into the interior.

    At the upper end of this gulf there is a market-town designated by law called Apologus, situated near Charaex Spasini and the River Euphrates.”

    —Periplus of the Erythraean Sea, Chapter 35

    In the 10th to 17th centuries AD, the Kingdom of Ormus, which seems to have given the strait its name, was located here. Scholars, historians and linguists derive the name “Ormuz” from the local Persian word هورمغ Hur-mogh meaning date palm. In the local dialects of Hurmoz and Minab this strait is still called Hurmogh and has the aforementioned meaning.[citation needed] The resemblance of this word with the name of the Persian God هرمز Hormoz (a variant of Ahura Mazda) has resulted in the popular belief[citation needed][neutrality is disputed] that these words are related.

    Navigation

    Ships moving through the Strait follow a Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS), which separates inbound from outbound traffic to reduce the risk of collision. The traffic lane is six miles (10 km) wide, including two two-mile (3 km)-wide traffic lanes, one inbound and one outbound, separated by a two-mile (3 km) wide separation median.

    To traverse the Strait, ships pass through the territorial waters of Iran and Oman under the transit passage provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Although not all countries have ratified the convention, most countries, including the U.S., accept these customary navigation rules as codified in the Convention. Oman has a radar site Link Quality Indicator (LQI) to monitor the TSS in the strait of Hormuz. This site is on a small island on the peak of Musandam Peninsula.

    Traffic statistics

    According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, on an average day in 2011, about 14 tankers carrying 17 million barrels (2,700,000 m3) of crude oil passed out of the Persian Gulf through the Strait. This was said to represent 35% of the world’s seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of oil traded worldwide. The report stated that more than 85 percent of these crude oil exports went to Asian markets, with Japan, India, South Korea and China the largest destinations.

    A 2007 report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies also stated that 17 million barrels passed out of the Gulf daily, but that oil flows through the Strait accounted for roughly 40% of all world-traded oil.

    Events

    Operation Praying Mantis

    On 18 April 1988, the U.S. Navy waged a one-day battle against Iranian forces in and around the strait. The battle, dubbed Operation Praying Mantis by the U.S. side, was launched in retaliation for the 14 April mining of the USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) by Iran. U.S. forces sank one frigate, one gunboat, and as many as six armed speedboats in the engagement and seriously damaged a second frigate.

    The downing of Iran Air 655

    On 3 July 1988, 290 people were killed when an Iran Air Airbus A300 passenger jet was shot down over the strait by the United States Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes in a case of mistaken identity.

    Collision between USS Newport News and tanker Mogamigawa

    On 8 January 2007, the nuclear submarine USS Newport News, traveling submerged, struck M/V Mogamigawa, a 300,000-ton Japanese-flagged very large crude tanker, south of the strait. There were no injuries, and no oil leaked from the tanker.

    Tensions in 2008

    2008 US-Iranian naval dispute

    A series of naval stand-offs between Iranian speedboats and U.S. warships in the Strait of Hormuz occurred in December 2007 and January 2008. U.S. officials accused Iran of harassing and provoking their naval vessels; Iranian officials denied these allegations.

    On 14 January 2008, U.S. naval officials appeared to contradict the Pentagon version of the 16 January event, in which U.S. officials said U.S. vessels were near to firing on approaching Iranian boats.

    The Navy’s regional commander, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, said the Iranians had “neither anti-ship missiles nor torpedoes” and that he “wouldn’t characterize the posture of the US 5th Fleet as afraid of these small boats”.

    Iranian defence policy

    On 29 June 2008, the commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, Ali Mohammed Jafari, said that if Iran were attacked by Israel or the United States, it would seal off the Strait of Hormuz, to wreak havoc in oil markets. This statement followed other more ambiguous threats from Iran’s oil minister and other government officials that a Western attack on Iran would result in turmoil in oil supply.

    In response, Vice Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, commander of the U.S. 5th Fleet stationed in Bahrain across the Persian Gulf from Iran, warned that such an action by Iran would be considered an act of war, and that the U.S. would not allow Iran to effectively hold hostage nearly a third of the world’s oil supply.

    On 8 July 2008, Ali Shirazi, a mid-level clerical aide to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was quoted by the student news agency ISNA as saying to Revolutionary Guards, “The Zionist regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a stupidity, Tel Aviv and U.S. shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran’s first targets and they will be burned.”

    Naval activity in 2008

    In the last week of July 2008, in the Operation Brimstone, dozens of U.S. and foreign navy ships came to off the eastern coast in the U.S., to undergo joint exercises for possible military activity in the shallow waters off the coast of Iran.

    As of 11 August 2008, more than 40 U.S. and allied ships reportedly were en route to the Strait of Hormuz. One U.S. carrier battle group from Japan would complement two more, which are already in the Persian Gulf, for a total of five battle groups, not counting submarines.

    Collision between USS Hartford and USS New Orleans

    On 20 March 2009, United States Navy Los Angeles-class submarine USS Hartford (SSN-768) collided with the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock USS New Orleans (LPD-18) in the strait. The collision, which slightly injured 15 sailors aboard the Hartford, ruptured a fuel tank aboard the New Orleans, spilling 25,000 US gallons (95 m3) of marine diesel fuel.

    Tensions in 2011–2012

    On 27 December 2011, Iranian Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi threatened to cut off oil supply from the Strait of Hormuz should economic sanctions limit, or cut off, Iranian oil exports. A U.S. Fifth Fleet spokeswoman said in response that the Fleet was “always ready to counter malevolent actions”, whilst Admiral Habibollah Sayari of the Iranian navy claimed that cutting off oil shipments would be “easy”.

    Despite an initial 2% rise in oil prices, oil markets ultimately did not react significantly to the Iranian threat, with oil analyst Thorbjoern Bak Jensen of Global Risk Management concluding that “they cannot stop the flow for a longer period due to the amount of U.S. hardware in the area”.

    On 3 January 2012, Iran threatened to take action if the U.S. Navy moves an aircraft carrier back into the Persian Gulf. Iranian Army chief Ataollah Salehi said the United States had moved an aircraft carrier out of the Gulf because of Iran’s naval exercises, and Iran would take action if the ship returned.

    “Iran will not repeat its warning…the enemy’s carrier has been moved to the Gulf of Oman because of our drill. I recommend and emphasize to the American carrier not to return to the Persian Gulf”, he said.

    The U.S. Navy spokesman Commander Bill Speaks quickly responded that deployment of U.S. military assets would continue as has been the custom stating: “The U.S. Navy operates under international maritime conventions to maintain a constant state of high vigilance in order to ensure the continued, safe flow of maritime traffic in waterways critical to global commerce.”

    While earlier statements from Iran had little effect on global oil markets, coupled with the new sanctions, these terse comments from Iran are driving crude futures higher, up over 4%. Pressure on prices reflect a combination of uncertainty driven further by China’s recent response – reducing oil January 2012 purchases from Iran by 50% compared to those made in 2011.

    The U.S. led sanctions may be “beginning to bite” as Iranian currency has recently lost some 12% of its value. Further pressure on Iranian currency was added by French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe on Tuesday calling for “stricter sanctions” and urged EU countries to follow the US in freezing Iranian central bank assets and imposing an embargo on oil exports.

    On 7 January 2012, the United Kingdom announced that it would be sending the Type 45 destroyer HMS Daring to the Persian Gulf. Daring, which is the lead ship of her class is claimed to be one of the “most advanced warships” in the world, and will undertake its first mission in the Persian Gulf. The British Government however have said that this move has been long-planned, as Daring will replace another Armilla patrol frigate.

    On 9 January 2012, Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi denied that Iran had ever claimed that it would close the Strait of Hormuz, saying that “the Islamic Republic of Iran is the most important provider of security in the strait…if one threatens the security of the Persian Gulf, then all are threatened.”

    The Iranian Foreign Ministry confirmed on 16 January 2012 that it has received a letter from the United States concerning the Strait of Hormuz, “via three different channels.” Authorities were considering whether to reply, although the contents of the letter were not divulged. The US had previously announced its intention to warn Iran that closing the Strait of Hormuz is a “red line” that would provoke an American response.

    Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said this past weekend that the United States would “take action and reopen the strait,” which could be accomplished only by military means, including minesweepers, warship escorts and potentially airstrikes. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta told troops in Texas on Thursday that the United States would not tolerate Iran’s closing of the strait.

    Nevertheless Iran continued to discuss the impact of shutting the Strait on world oil markets, saying that any disruption of supply would cause a shock to markets that “no country” could manage. By 23 January, a flotilla had been established by countries opposing Iran’s threats to close the Hormuz Strait.

    These ships operated in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea off the coast of Iran. The flotilla included two American aircraft carriers (the USS Carl Vinson and USS Abraham Lincoln) and three destroyers (USS Momsen, USS Sterett, USS Halsey), seven British warships, including the destroyer HMS Daring and a number of Type 23 frigates (HMS Westminster, HMS Argyll, HMS Somerset and HMS St Albans), and a French warship.

    On 24 January tensions rose further after the European Union imposed sanctions on Iranian oil. A senior member of Iran’s parliament said that the Islamic Republic would close the entry point to the Gulf if new sanctions block its oil exports. “If any disruption happens regarding the sale of Iranian oil, the Strait of Hormuz will definitely be closed,” Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament’s foreign affairs and national security committee, told the semi-official Fars News Agency.

    Ability of Iran to hinder shipping

    The Millennium Challenge 2002 was to simulate an attempt by Iran to close the strait. The assumptions and results were controversial. A 2008 article in International Security contended that Iran could seal off or impede traffic in the Strait for a month, and an attempt by the U.S. to reopen it would be likely to escalate the conflict.

    In a later issue, however, the journal published a response which questioned some key assumptions and suggested a much shorter timeline for re-opening. In December 2011 Iran’s navy began a 10-day exercise in international waters near the strait. The Iranian Navy Commander, Rear Admiral Habibollah Sayyari, stated that the strait would not be closed during the exercise; Iranian forces could easily accomplish that but such a decision must be made at a political level.

    Captain John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, was quoted in a December 2011 Reuters article: “Efforts to increase tension in that part of the world are unhelpful and counter-productive. For our part, we are comfortable that we have in the region sufficient capabilities to honor our commitments to our friends and partners, as well as the international community.”

    In the same article, Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, said, “The expectation is that the U.S. military could address any Iranian threat relatively quickly.”

    General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in January 2012 that Iran “has invested in capabilities that could, in fact, for a period of time block the Strait of Hormuz.” He also stated, “We’ve invested in capabilities to ensure that if that happens, we can defeat that.”


    s

    s


     
  • Virtual Chitchatting 2:30 PM on 2012/05/15 Permalink  

    Blame it on Iran, The Silly Plot of US Government to Assassinate Saudi Ambassador to the US

    By Sando Sasako
    Lead Consultant
    Advanced Advocacy Plus

    Jakarta, 15 May 2012, 14.30

    Outsourcing an assassin to Saudi Ambassador to the US? An undermining silly amateur job. How good would that be? What’s the advantage and benefit for Iran? A superficially foolish sloppy plot from FBI, DEA, DOS, AG, and DOJ. A cartel guy must be a disciplined man and a high risk-taker to protect the multi-billion dollar worth distribution, not to kill a foreign politician. A US$ 100,000 or 7% down payment. C’mon. A f***ing genius plot.

    A Corpus Christi, Texas used-car salesman to hire a Mexican drug cartel to kill the Saudi ambassador in a crowded Washington restaurant? A disorderly life of a man marked by constant failure, whether as a student, husband, father, or businessman. A trail of successive failed businesses, including a used car lot, a restaurant, a convenience store, and a finance company. A goofy guy who always had a smile on his face. Arrested for felony possession of a narcotic. Accused to abuse his spouse and filed a protective order against him in 1991.

    Saudi and the Jews have a motive to provoke a war between the US and Iran.


    Read other highly related articles:

    1. Calculating the magnitude of world’s mobile war machines of present day, aka United States’ Hostile War Intentions, a full-fledged photo collection of world’s aircraft carriers, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/calculating-the-magnitude-of-worlds-mobile-war-machines-of-present-day/
    2. The Blunt Oil Embargo and Other International Sanctions Measures of European Union, United Nations, and other United States’ Puppy Dog Countries to Iran’s National Interests, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/the-blunt-international-sanctions-measures-to-irans-national-interests/
    3. The Pressing Measures of European Union against Iranian Nuclear Program, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/the-pressing-measures-of-european-union-against-iranian-nuclear-program/
    4. The Jews have been up and against Iran, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/the-jews-have-been-up-and-against-iran/
    5. An Act of War, A Jewish Way to Wage War: A Terror by Killing Iranian Nuclear Scientists, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/an-act-of-war-a-jewish-way-to-wage-war-a-terror-by-killing-iranian-nuclear-scientists/
    6. Blame it on Iran, The Silly Plot of US Government to Assassinate Saudi Ambassador to the US, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/blame-it-on-iran-the-silly-plot-of-us-government-to-assassinate-saudi-ambassador-to-the-us/
    7. Another Debauchery Humiliating the US Military Institutions under the aegis of US Secret Service, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/another-debauchery-humiliating-the-us-military-institutions-under-the-aegis-of-us-secret-service/
    8. The Russia is advancing toward Syria, guarding the main entry point for the US to infiltrate the West Asia, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/the-russia-is-advancing-toward-syria-guarding-the-main-entry-point-for-the-us-to-infiltrate-the-west-asia/
    9. Asia, A Soon-To-Be War Zone for the United States, http://mayachitchatting.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/asia-a-soon-to-be-war-zone-for-the-united-states/

    1. 201101041814, Son of Iran shah kills himself in U.S.
    2. 20110304081231, Years after vanishing in Iran, US man proven alive
    3. 20111011, Alleged plot is uncharacteristically bold
    4. 201110111934, Iranians charged in US over plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador
    5. 20111012, Editorial: The Charges Against Iran
    6. 20111012, Shadow war: Iran and US lock horns over alleged assassination plot
    7. 201110121026, Five questions raised by the alleged Iranian assassination plot
    8. 201110121252, Alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador to US – timeline
    9. 201110121918, Iran’s alleged Mexican hitman was US drugs informant
    10. 201110121940, Saudis say Iran must ‘pay the price’ for alleged plot as US resists retaliation
    11. 201110122024, Hostility between Iran and Saudi Arabia is going to get worse
    12. 20111013, Alleged Iranian Assassination Plot Heats up Middle Eastern Cold War
    13. 20111013, Patrick Cockburn: This bizarre plot goes against all that is known of Iran’s intelligence service
    14. 20111013, Unanswered questions over the alleged Iranian assassination plot
    15. 20111019, Who is Really Behind It? The Implausibility of an Iranian Plot
    16. 201201312008, Iranian attack on America and allies increasingly likely – intelligence chief

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_iran_pahlavi_suicide

    Son of Iran shah kills himself in U.S.

    Reporting by Ros Krasny; Editing by Anthony Boadle, – Tue Jan 4, 6:14 pm ET 2011

    BOSTON (Reuters) – Prince Alireza Pahlavi, younger son of the late Shah of Iran, committed suicide on Tuesday in Boston, according to his brother. “It is with immense grief that we would like to inform our compatriots of the passing away of Prince Alireza Pahlavi,” Reza Pahlavi, the Shah’s older son, said on his website, rezapahlavi.org.

    Pahlavi, 44, took his life early on Tuesday at his Boston home “plunging his family and friends into great sorrow,” the note said. It said he struggled for years to overcome depression over the fate of Iran and the loss of his father and sister. The Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was overthrown by the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and died in Egypt a year later. His daughter Leila died in a London hotel room in 2001 of a drug overdose.

    Born in Tehran in 1966, Alireza Pahlavi attended schools in Iran before traveling in 1979 to the United States, where he obtained degrees at Princeton and Columbia universities. Pahlavi had attended Harvard University in pursuit of a PhD in Ancient Iranian studies. A Harvard spokesman said Pahlavi was not currently a student.

    Boston police were investigating a suspected suicide that occurred shortly after 2 a.m. local time. Boston media reported that Pahlavi shot himself in his apartment in the city’s South End neighborhood.


    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110304/ap_on_re_us/us_missing_american_iran

    Years after vanishing in Iran, US man proven alive

    By Matt Apuzzo and Adam Goldman, Associated Press – 21 mins ago, 20110304 08:33:31

    WASHINGTON – Four years after a retired FBI agent mysteriously vanished inside Iran, U.S. officials have received irrefutable proof he is alive, a dramatic development that has sharply intensified diplomatic efforts to bring him home, The Associated Press has learned.

    The U.S. had lacked reliable information about whether Robert Levinson was alive or dead since he disappeared in March 2007 from the Iranian island of Kish. It remains unclear who exactly is holding Levinson or where he is, but the proof that he is alive is a hopeful sign in a case that had seemingly gone cold.

    The State Department issued a three-sentence statement by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton Thursday saying there were indications Levinson was in southwest Asia and asking Iran for help. The AP has learned fuller details after a lengthy investigation into Levinson’s disappearance and the effort to get him back to the U.S.

    Iran has repeatedly said it has no information about Levinson, but U.S. diplomats and investigators have long said they believed he was taken by Iranian government agents. As years passed, many in the U.S. government believed the 63-year-old with diabetes and high blood pressure might have died.

    But late last year, Levinson’s family received proof that he was alive. Investigators confirmed its authenticity and that it was recent, current and former officials said. Officials say they believe he is still alive. “It has been almost four years since I have seen my beloved husband Robert Levinson,” his wife, Christine, said in a statement on the family’s website.

    “Our family is tremendously encouraged by the news Bob is alive but remains concerned for his safety and well-being.” Reporters were turned away from Levinson’s gated community in Coral Springs, Fla., after someone from his home told guards not to let journalists in. A neighbor, Luanne Wallice, said she’d been praying for the family. “I am just so excited. I hope it’s true,” Wallice said.

    The AP has known about the proof of life since shortly after it arrived but delayed reporting it because officials said any publicity would jeopardize the ability to get Levinson home. The AP is not disclosing the nature of the proof because officials believe that would hurt efforts to free him.

    The current and former officials who discussed the matter insisted on anonymity because the issue is so sensitive. Next Wednesday will mark the fourth anniversary of Levinson’s disappearance. With proof that he is alive, the case becomes one of the longer international hostage situations involving U.S. citizens. No one has publicly acknowledged holding him.

    “It’s encouraging that we may have good news,” Florida Sen. Bill Nelson said. “I’m praying that he can be reunited with his family.” The U.S. announcement Thursday was an abrupt change in tone from what had been stalemated discussions. The U.S. has previously expressed deep frustration over what it said was Iran’s lack of cooperation.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been circumspect about what his country knows about Levinson. In the course of a single interview, he has said he had no information, has offered to help and then has accused the FBI of withholding information about why Levinson was in Iran.

    Levinson retired from the FBI in 1998 and became a private investigator. He was investigating cigarette smuggling in early 2007 and his family has said that effort took him to Iran. Kish is a popular resort area and a hotbed of smuggling and organized crime. It is also a free trade zone, meaning U.S. citizens do not need visas to travel there.

    Authorities don’t know why the evidence that Levinson was alive surfaced now, after years of silence. But it has touched off the most hopeful round of diplomacy since he disappeared. Iran shares borders with the southwest Asian countries of Pakistan and Afghanistan, raising the possibility that Levinson was shuttled into one of those countries.

    Both border crossings are known smuggling routes. The route into Pakistan leads into a lawless tribal region that’s home to insurgents, terrorist groups and criminal organizations.

    Levinson disappeared after a meeting with Dawud Salahuddin, an American fugitive wanted for the assassination of a former Iranian diplomat in Maryland in 1980. Salahuddin has said he last saw Levinson being questioned by Iranian officials. Levinson’s distinctive signature was used to check out of his hotel, but he never made it to the airport.

    Over the years, stories have trickled in from witnesses claiming to have evidence about Levinson’s whereabouts. But like so much about Iran, the U.S. was never able to verify those accounts. An Iranian defector now living in the United States, Reza Kahlili, told the AP that Levinson was picked up by the Quds Force, a unit of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

    Kahlili said he was told by sources inside Iran that Levinson was investigating money laundering and discovered a link between the Russian mob and the Revolutionary Guard. Kahlili said Levinson was taken to a safe house in Tehran but he does not know what happened to him.

    A former FBI official said the U.S. was aware of that account and, though he described Kahlili as credible, the U.S. could never confirm his story. In 2009, an Iranian defector told U.S. authorities that, while imprisoned by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, he saw the name “B. Levinson” scrawled on the door frame of his cell.

    That account was included in a diplomatic memorandum obtained by WikiLeaks and published last month. Former officials have raised doubts about the defector, however, and when the AP located him in Europe in early January, he said he never saw Levinson’s name. The State Department has repeatedly called on Iran to provide more information about Levinson.

    U.S. diplomats have also asked foreign leaders to intervene. Even the Vatican was enlisted, but in 2008 the Iranian government chastised the pope’s ambassador to Tehran, saying the Vatican had no business asking about the case, according to State Department documents. In 2009, Secretary of State Clinton ordered a fresh diplomatic push. At a United Nations conference at The Hague that year, she personally passed a note to Iranian officials, urging them to help find Levinson.

    Associated Press writer Lisa Orkin contributed from Coral Springs, Fla.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/alleged-plot-is-uncharacteristically-bold/2011/10/11/gIQA7vzpdL_story.html

    Alleged plot is uncharacteristically bold

    By Joby Warrick and Thomas Erdbrink,

    The alleged plot to carry out an assassination on U.S. soil would represent, if proven, a significant escalation of a long-running covert struggle between Iran and the West that has included industrial sabotage, terrorist bombings and the killing of Iranian nuclear scientists. It also would reflect a radical shift in tactics for a country that usually prefers to leave its dirty work to proxies.

    The Obama administration on Tuesday directly accused Iran and its elite Quds Force of backing the alleged attempt to kill Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir, using hit men from a Mexican drug gang. The allegation plunged U.S.-Iranian relations into crisis and sent U.S. officials scrambling in search of new punitive measures to impose against a country that has already been hit with multiple rounds of sanctions.

    The brazenness of the plot outlined by Justice Department officials struck many current and former U.S. officials as out of character for Iran, which has rarely, if ever, been so bold as to strike targets in America. U.S. officials were similarly surprised last month when an Iranian admiral threatened to send naval ships to patrol off U.S. waters.

    “To my mind, it reeks of desperation,” said Matthew Levitt, a former deputy assistant treasury secretary for intelligence and analysis. “It suggests to me that they are feeling cornered.” To others, the very rashness of the alleged assassination plot raised doubts about whether Iran’s normally cautious ruling clerics supported or even know about it.

    Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer in the Middle East and author of several books on Iran, said there was “sloppiness about the case that defies belief.” “Maybe things have really fallen apart in Tehran, or maybe there’s a radical group that wants to stir up the pot,” Baer said. “But the Quds are better than this. If they wanted to come after you, you’d be dead already.”

    Other current and former U.S. officials argued that the plot had to have originated at the highest levels of Iran’s government and the elite Revolutionary Guard Corps, given the costs and complexities of conducting such an international operation. “A reasonable person can conclude that senior members of the [Revolutionary Guard] and Quds Force and the civilian government had to know,” said Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), chairman of the House intelligence committee.

    The plot shows that the Iranians “have gotten more and more brazen,” he said. “This was a two-fer for them: kill the Saudi ambassador and embarrass the United States by having it happen on U.S. soil in Washington, D.C.” Administration officials made clear that they saw the plot as a high-level operation, not the work of rogue agents.

    “The United States does not need new reasons to have serious concerns about the Quds Force,” said a senior administration official, citing the militant force’s role in Iraq, Lebanon and other strategic places. “But this plot on U.S. soil is a dangerous escalation, and we consider it a flagrant violation of international law.”


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/alleged-plot-is-uncharacteristically-bold/2011/10/11/gIQA7vzpdL_story_1.html

    Long before this week, the administration had tense relations with Iran, which snubbed President Obama’s attempts at rapprochement early in his presidency and then proceeded to open new fronts in the 30-year-old cold war between the two countries. Two months after his inauguration, Obama attempted to appeal directly to the Iranian people in a videotaped message marking the beginning of the Iranian festival of Nowruz.

    “The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations,” Obama said. “You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities.” A month later, Iran sentenced an American-Iranian journalist to prison for spying.

    Tehran later rejected U.S. proposals for ending the international standoff over its nuclear energy program, which the United States believes is a cover for aspirations for nuclear weapons. As Iran added inexorably to its stockpile of enriched uranium, the Republican Guard and Quds Force contributed to U.S. casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, in part by supplying deadly new forms of explosives to insurgents in both countries, Western intelligence officials say.

    “In addition to allegedly sponsoring this plot, Iran has supported and provided weapons for attacks on our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), ranking Republican on the Senate intelligence committee. “This has continued far too long with no repercussions.”

    The alleged assassination plot would be the first known attempt by Iranians in decades to strike a foreign dignitary on U.S. soil. But Iran has long used proxy forces — most often the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah — to carry out targeted killings and terrorist strikes from the Middle East to Europe to South America.

    Tehran also is increasingly engaged in tit-for-tat warfare with Western, Israeli and Arab intelligence operatives seeking to undercut Iran’s regional influence and cripple its nuclear program. The most spectacular blows in the covert war in recent years have fallen on Iran. In the past four years, four Iranian scientists with links to the country’s nuclear program have been slain, by gunshot, bomb or poisoning, by unknown assailants.

    A fifth scientist barely escaped death in a car-bombing. Iran has accused the United States and Israel of killing the scientists as part of a larger program of sabotage and intimidation aimed at crippling the nuclear program. Neither the U.S. nor Israeli government has commented publicly on the slayings.

    Iran’s nuclear program also was damaged by a computer worm that targeted enrichment operations. Some computer experts believe the worm, Stuxnet, was created by the Israelis, perhaps with U.S. help. In interviews, Iranian officials complain of the damage inflicted by what they say is a black-operations program led by the United States and Israel, and some of them have threatened reprisals.

    At the same time, Iran faces increasing pressure from long-time rival Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states that are intent on preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or expanding its regional influence. Several Persian Gulf states joined the West in a campaign to isolate Iran’s chief Arab ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

    Iran has responded by sending oil, cash and arms to Assad, and by going on the offensive elsewhere. In August, Revolutionary Guard forces also started an intense campaign in the Kurdish border area in an attempt to destroy the Kurdish separatist organization PJAK, which officials in Tehran say is backed by the United States.

    But while Iranian officials have acknowledged battling U.S. interests along an array of fronts, they scoffed openly at the new accusations, which a government spokesman on Tuesday dismissed as “big lies that will go nowhere.” “These sorts of cliche behaviors are based on the old, hostile policies of America and the Zionists,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast, “and are just foolish games.”

    Staff writers Scott Wilson, Karen DeYoung and Greg Miller and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. Erdbrink reported from Tehran.


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/11/iranians-charged-us-assassination-plot?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

    Iranians charged in US over plot to assassinate Saudi ambassador

    Ewen MacAskill in Washington and agencies, guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 11 October 2011 19.34 BST

    Details on assassination plot from Department of Justice, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/October/11-ag-1339.html

    The indictment served against the two Iranians (pdf), http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/10/11/saudis.pdf

    US claims elements of Iranian government directed bomb plot with alleged involvement of Mexican drug cartel. US attorney general Eric Holder describes the “murder-for-hire” plot. A dangerous confrontation was developing on Tuesday between the US and Iran after the Obama administration directly blamed the Iranian governnment for an alleged plot to blow up the Saudi ambassador and scores of others at a Washington restaurant with the help of a Mexican drug cartel.

    The US attorney-general Eric Holder said Iran would be “held to account” over what he described as a flagrant abuse of international law. While the US says military action remains on the table, it is at present seeking instead to work through diplomatic and financial means to further isolate Iran.

    The US Treasury department immediately imposed sanctions against five individuals allegedly linked to the plot. The Iranian government reacted by dismissing the allegations, saying the US was expert at making false claims. “This is a fabrication,” said a spokesman for the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    Two men, one an an American-Iranian, Manssor Arbabsiar, 56, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian, have been charged in New York with the alleged “murder-for-hire” plot to pay a Mexican drug cartel to help assassinate Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador and close confidante of the Saudi king.

    According to the US justice department, the aim was to bomb a restaurant in Washington frequented by Jubeir with the possibility of a hundred or more bystanders being killed in the explosion. US officials said the Iranians put a $1.5m price tag on the assassination. The White House said Obama called Jubeir today to express solidarity between the US and Saudi Arabia in the face of “a flagrant violation of US and international law”.

    Arbabsiar appeared briefly in court in New York this afternoon, and was held without bail. Shakuri, who is alleged to be a member of the Quds Force, a special operations team inside the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is said by the US to be in Iran. The US views the plot as state-sponsored terrorism.

    Secretary of state Hillary Clinton described it as a “violation of international norms” and said she would discuss with allies in Europe and elsewhere round the world how to further isolate Iran. The Saudi embassy in Washington described the alleged attempt to assassinate its Jubeir as “despicable”.

    Relations between the US and Iran have been tense for years over Tehran’s alleged pursuit of a nuclear bomb. But the court case heightens tensions even further, introducing unpredictable elements such a risk of retaliation by Saudi Arabia. The central question is whether a rogue element in Iran may have been involved or whether the alleged plot had been sanctioned by a senior leader.

    Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House intelligence committee, who was briefed in detail, reufsed to say whether Ahmadinejad had been involved but he insisted it was “an Iranian government sanctioned event”. Arbabsiar was arrested on September 29 at New York’s JFK airport following a sting operation involving the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration.

    The FBI director, Robert Mueller, speaking alongside Holder at a press conference in Washington, described the plot as “reading like a Hollywood script”. The justice department claimed Arbabsiar was working under the direction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. He allegedly met on a number of occasions in Mexico with a DEA confidential source who was posing as a member of the drugs cartel Zetas.

    The source, according to the indictment, had faced drugs charges in the past but these had been dismissed in return for him becoming a paid informer. According to the justice department, Arbabsiar met with the DEA source in Mexico on May 24 where he discussed explosives and explained that he was interested in, among other things, attacking an embassy of Saudi Arabia. They held further meetings in Mexico in June and July.

    Arbabsiar allegedly arranged for $100,000 to the transferred into a bank account in the US for the supposed cartel member. He is alleged to have told the DEA source that the assassination needed to go forward, despite possible mass casualties, telling him: “They want that guy [the ambassador] done [killed], if the hundred go with him f**k ‘em.”

    The agent and Arbabsiar allegedly discussed bombing a restaurant in the United States that the ambassador frequented. When the agent noted that others could be killed in the attack, including US senators who dine at the restaurant, Arbabsiar allegedly dismissed these concerns as “no big deal”.

    The use of a sting operation is likely to prompt scepticism about the extent, if any, of the Iranian government’s involvement. Although the focus of media attention this year has been on the Arab Spring, the Pentagon, State Department and White House have all been increasingly worried about alleged nuclear developments in Iran.

    Steve Clemons, a Washington-based foreign affairs analyst, said: “This is a serious situation – and this kind of assassination is the sort that could lead to an unexpected cascade of events that could draw the U.S. and other powers into a consequential conflagration in the Middle East.”

    The five facing US Treasury sanctions are: Arbabsiar and Shakuri; Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani; Hamed Abdollahi, a senior Quds Force official, who allegedly coordinated aspects of the plot; and Abdul Reza Shahlai, a Quds official also allegedly involved in the operation.

    • This article was modified on 12 October 2011. The original referred to the Drug Enforcement Agency. This has been corrected


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/opinion/the-charges-against-iran.html?_r=3&ref=opinion%20

    Editorial: The Charges Against Iran

    Published: October 12, 2011

    Charges that Iranian officials ordered the assassination of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States are chilling and bizarre. If true — and American officials insist they have strong evidence — this is only the latest reminder of why the United States and its allies must use all possible diplomatic and economic pressures to isolate Tehran and block its nuclear ambitions.

    American credibility following the war in Iraq is fragile, and Washington will have to fully disclose the evidence — and be very careful not to oversell it. While Tehran fiercely denied the allegations, it has a long history of assassinations and terrorist attacks and a particular animosity for its Saudi rivals.

    The Quds Force, the branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps that the Justice Department said was behind the conspiracy, is believed to have been responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia in 1996, in which 19 American servicemen died. This plot appears extraordinarily brazen — the first major Iranian attack on American soil — and almost laughably sloppy.

    The Quds Force usually does such work through organized proxies, including Hezbollah, Hamas and Iraq’s Mahdi Army. The Justice Department charges that this time it used an Iranian-American car salesman, Mansour J. Arbabsiar, who then tried to hire a Mexican drug cartel to kill Ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.

    (Officials said the Iranians had also discussed contracting out attacks on the Israeli and Saudi embassies in Washington and in Buenos Aires.) As it turned out, thankfully, the member of Los Zetas whom Mr. Arbabsiar allegedly contacted was an informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration.

    All of this raises a large number of questions, starting with who in Iran is behind the plot and why they would try something so reckless and do it so clumsily. American officials say they are certain of the role of several Quds officers and that they cannot imagine anything this ambitious going forward without the direction of the chief of the Quds Force, Qassim Suleimani. As President Obama moves forward, he and his aides will have to figure out how high the responsibility goes.

    It is a relief that Mr. Obama will be the one to weigh the evidence and make the decisions, not his predecessor. He has proved his mettle with the raids that killed Osama bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. But steely restraint and a dispassionate, effective response are needed. Not another shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later war.

    The administration has begun sharing information with allies and pressing them to impose additional sanctions on Iran and particularly on organizations and businesses run by the Revolutionary Guards. The administration should also use this moment to press hard for a new round of sanctions at the United Nations.

    Five years after the Security Council ordered it to halt, Iran is still enriching uranium and clearly betting that the world will forget or acquiesce. This regime must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

    A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 13, 2011, on page A28 of the New York edition with the headline: The Charges Against Iran: An alleged murder-for-hire plot is only the latest outrage from Tehran.


    http://www.periscopepost.com/2011/10/shadow-war-iran-and-us-lock-horns-over-alleged-assassination-plot/

    Shadow war: Iran and US lock horns over alleged assassination plot

    By Periscope, 12 October 2011

    Was Iran involved in an alleged plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on US soil? It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood film: the US has accused Iran of plotting to assassinate the Saudi ambassador by hiring a Mexican drug cartel to bomb his favourite Washington restaurant. Two men have been charged after apparently negotiating with a cartel representative – who turned out to be an informant for the US drug enforcement agency (DEA).

    The US stance is that the attack was orchestrated by the Quds Force, a special branch of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, rather than a rogue plot. “The idea that they would attempt to go to a Mexican drug cartel to solicit murder-for-hire to kill the Saudi ambassador? Nobody could make that up, right?” US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said to the Associated Press.

    Strange plot. Writing for Gawker, John Cook pointed out that there are “many, many strange things about this story.” So far, the US has charged two men in connection with the alleged plot: Manssor Arbabsiar, an Iranian-American businessman currently under arrest, and Gholam Shakuri, an Iranian intelligence agent who remains in Iran.

    Cook flagged up the decision to charge Shakuri as odd: “They’ve already got the only guy they’re going to get, and he’s cooperating and providing a presumably invaluable intelligence service—so why blow it up?”

    “Iran categorically and in the strongest terms condemns this shameful allegation by the United States authorities and deplores it as a well-thought evil plot in line with their anti-Iranian policy”, said Mohammad Khazaee, Iranian ambassador to the US, in a letter to the United Nations.

    Unlikely method. At The New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar reported that Iran experts “found it baffling and uncharacteristic that the Quds Force would risk linking itself so publicly to plotting a terrorist attack on American soil”, particularly as this may jeopardise Iran’s nuclear programme.

    Attack on allies. PJ Crowley questioned on The Guardian’s Comment Is Free how much Iran would gain from a plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the US, Adel al-Jubeir. “Perhaps the Iranians were thinking that additional sand in the gears of the US-Saudi friendship can’t hurt”, he suggested.

    Outreach. Eli Lake wrote on The Daily Beast that while President Obama had attempted to “reach out” to Iran’s leaders during the first year of his presidency, “behind the scenes however, the United States was also doubling down with its Middle Eastern allies against Iran, particularly Saudi Arabia and Israel.”

    However, such behind-the-scenes negotiating isn’t enough to pacify The New York Daily News‘s Michael Rubin, who argued that Obama should now cease all attempts at dialogue: “Obama may hold an olive branch, but the White House must recognize the Iranian regime’s fist holds only blood,” he said.

    Victory for hardliners in Iran. Jamsheed Choksy and Carol Choksy argued on CNN that the plot was a victory for hardliners in the Iranian government who are against the possibility of “normalisation” of relations with the US: “Those in Tehran who plotted these attacks intended to sunder that goodwill between peoples and to further alienate their own citizens from the rest of the world.”


    http://rothkopf.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/12/five_questions_raised_by_the_alleged_iranian_assassination_plot

    Five questions raised by the alleged Iranian assassination plot

    Posted By David Rothkopf  Wednesday, October 12, 2011 – 10:26 AM

    While Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Captain Louis Renault issued an official statement saying that his government is “shocked, shocked” at allegations that they were behind an assassination plot to kill Saudi Arabia’s Ambassador to the United States Adel al-Jubeir, the incident raises many important questions.

    Among them:

    What would the Obama Administration’s response have been had they succeeded?

    If the plot had unfolded as planned and these Iranian operatives had blown up al-Jubeir in a restaurant in Washington, would the Obama Administration have considered retaliating with force against the Iranians? Drone strikes? Air strikes against selected Iranian targets (that perhaps happened to be linked to their nuclear program)?

    Coordinated action with the Saudis? With the Saudis and the Israelis? Or would the United States have protested vigorously in the U.N. and taken actions akin to those they are taking now to further isolate Iran in the international community? What if American citizens had been killed in the attack as they almost inevitably would have been?

    Remember Joe Biden’s assertion long-ago that the President would be tested by foreign enemies. This is the kind of thing he had in mind. Except the context here is that the United States is broke and pulling out of the Middle East and Obama would certainly like to avoid being drawn back into a big conflict in the region.

    The Iranians, it seems were betting that the response would therefore be contained. And while I understand the rationale, I think the calculation is wrong. Dead Americans lying in the rubble of a Washington restaurant would require an immediate and forceful response. It would be a mistake for the Iranians or anyone else to underestimate the power an attack would have to galvanize U.S. public opinion in favor of strong action.

    What will happen if U.S. efforts “isolate Iran” aren’t successful?

    The U.S. is, according to the Washington Post, “scrambling in search of new punitive measures to impose against a country that has already been hit with multiple rounds of sanctions.” As the quote implies, finding new penalties that have been already been considered, imposed, or failed is going to be tough.

    Further, getting other countries to go along with such measures is going to be tough if there are big powers that will sit on the sidelines as they have in past such efforts (which after all, involve the much bigger stakes associated with Iran’s nuclear program). So you have to assume that whatever the United States comes up with is going to be weaker and less effective than would be optimal.

    And the result will be a message to the Iranians that the downside risk of exploring such initiatives is fairly minimal. It may even end up sending a message that is the opposite of the point above — which is that the United States will not be able to response effectively even to a successful attack. My sense is that’s wrong … but let’s be clear, even considering a plot like the one revealed yesterday suggests that somebody somewhere concluded the risks associated with it were manageable and worth undertaking.

    What were the Iranians thinking?

    The prior point leads directly to the core question, why would Iran undertake such a mission? Some might ask whether this was a decision taken high up in the Iranian government, but in my view that is a naïve question. The plan allegedly involved both the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and its covert Quds force.

    These are among the most important of Iran’s institutional terror arms and a plot that would directly provoke both the United States and the Saudis would not have been undertaken without approval from senior Iranian leadership. Which means that high up in the Iranian government there are those who feel they can attack the United States and the Saudis with impunity and that they welcome the potential escalation of conflict that might bring.

    Whether these are radical elements seeking to achieve an internal political objective through the initiative or not, the plot suggests a degree of hubris that is worrisome to say the least. Is it fed by progress Iran is making extending its influence into Iraq, its success thus far in staving off the opposition in Syria, recent progress made by its clients in Hamas, the apparent retreat of the United States to deal with domestic economic problems?

    Is it the beginning of a new set of bolder initiatives? If they are willing to undertake such a mission what does it mean they may be contemplating on lower risk fronts like cyber-attacks? If they are willing to be so bold what does it mean they might do should they ever actually attain nuclear weapons capability?

    Whatever the answers to these questions are, there is no question but that the Iranians are emboldened and remain, as the United States has long asserted, one of the leading state-sponsors of terror.

    What does the alleged involvement of Mexican cartels in the plot imply?

    It suggests that the increasing inability of the Mexican government to impose the rule of law in several important regions of the country near the U.S. border poses a more serious security risk than is commonly discussed. Taken in conjunction with other evidence of Iranian efforts to establish operational footholds in this hemisphere (see Ambassador Marc Ginsburg’s Huffington Post piece from yesterday on this), it also should suggest that security cooperation in the Americas ought to be a higher priority issue than it at least seems to be.

    Not that the Iranians and their scattershot and some might suggest hare-brained plans pose any kind of sustained threat to the United States of themselves. But all pockets of deeply anti- United States feeling or failed or failing states or regions in the hemisphere are certain to attract bad actors and sooner or later some plan is going to result in real damage being done.

    If that’s the case, the casualties won’t just be in the U.S., they will be to U.S. relations with other countries in the Americas. Imagine for a moment if a restaurant blast in DC was linked to both Iran and Mexican cartels. How high do you think that wall on the border would end up being? How hollow would Mexican government claims that “everything is under control” ring?

    What does Iran’s involvement in this plan mean for Iran’s enablers in the world?

    Thus far, Iran has been able to avoid feeling the real pain of sanctions targeting its nuclear program because of the explicit or tacit support of a wide variety of enablers around the world, notably those from a host of major emerging powers who may speak official words of condemnation (or not) but who continue to deal with the Iranians in ways that support the regime.

    Much as Putin’s efforts to undercut democracy in Russia were “a headache for the BRICs” in the words of one senior diplomat familiar close to the countries involved, so too does Iran getting caught behaving true to form produce collective egg on the face of those who have been suggesting the Iranians have been persecuted by the United States or the Israelis or other powers the world loves to hate.

    How would a successful attack have impacted these countries and their stance on Iran? And were it to produce a forceful response that for a while put Persian Gulf oil flows at risk, how might that have impacted not just the world economy but countries like China and India that depend increasingly on that oil?

    Do incidents like this move such powers closer to the role that they must ultimately play as more active protectors of global security? Do they reveal to countries like China, India and Brazil in particular that there are serious dangers associated with being too involved with or supportive of a regime as dangerous as that in Tehran?

    Finally, questions aside, if the plot against the Saudi Ambassador is as it was described in yesterday’s press events and in subsequent stories, the effectiveness of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies in detecting it and quashing it deserves national … and international …a ppreciation. Tough as the above questions are, it is clear in considering them that a successful attack would have produced much tougher questions indeed.

    MARKPEAR22, October 12, 2011, 3:13 PM ET

    Mexico’s inability??!! You of course mean our inability to legalize cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. Right?

    EHRENS, October 12, 2011, 3:31 PM ET

    Rothkopf not asking the right questions

    Without questioning why the government of Iran would outsource such a hit to a couple of amateurs who in turn outsourced it to the Mexican cartels, Rothkopf launches into la-la land: “The Iranians, it seems were betting that the response would therefore be contained.” And “What were the Iranians thinking?”

    Besides the implausibility of Iranian GOVERNMENT involvement in this act, Rothkopf does apparently does not see the irony of a government which just launched an assassination attack in a foreign country on one of its own citizens, and which doesn’t care much about collateral civilian damage, now screaming bloody murder that a couple of Iranians wanted to do pretty much the same.

    Rothkopf is right that this whole mess raises many questions, but he’s not asking the right questions.

    TARQUINIS, October 12, 2011, 7:36 PM ET

    One more Tonkin Gulf provocation

    This sounds much more like an elaborate and professional Mossad set-up than an Iranian plot. Cui Bono? (What POSSIBLE good interest of Iran would be served by a bomb assassination of the Saudi ambassador in DC? Whose interests would be advanced? Who propagates for war with Iran? Could it be the young dogs of Zion?) But that point aside…

    According to Rasool Nafisi, an Iranian-American scholar who studies the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, rogue elements of the Revolutionary Guards Quds force conceivably might have concocted the plot without top-level approval, perhaps to prevent rapprochement between Iran and the U.S.

    So why play into their hands and let them succeed even though the plot itself failed? The absolute last thing this country needs is to be played into a new and most catastrophic war with Iran. We love to invoke international law when it serves our purposes, and totally ignore it when it suits us.

    Where was international law when we overthrew the Iranian democracy in 1953 via CIA operation Ajax? (from which devolves all our problems with Iran)

    Where was international law when we supported Saddam’s eight-year war with Iran, including the use of chemical weapons, and Rumsfield went to Iraq to shake his hand?

    Where was international law when in 1988 a US cruiser shot down an Iranian Airbus in the Persian Gulf, in Iranian national waters, killing 290 civilians?

    The absolute last thing we need is another catastrophic war with Iran. Sure, we can blast them and create vast ch