RISIKO LABEL TERORIS UNTUK KKB PAPUA | AF UNCENSORED FT. HIKMAHANTO & INDRA

The central government should conduct communication and consultation with the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) regarding the terrorist status designation for the KKB. In political terms, this could be interpreted as Governor of Papua, Mr. Lukas Enembe, looking for opportunities or possibilities to widen the arena of conflict. Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings. Welcome back to AK Paral Advensor. Today, at

this moment, we will discuss an issue based on the government's decision to classify the Papuan KKB movement as an act of terrorism. This label of terrorism is a serious matter, especially with the existence of the Terrorism Law, Law Number 6 of 2018, and that will certainly have widespread repercussions. Today I have invited two guests, guests who are very qualified to speak on this subject. The first is Prof. Eh, Dr. Hikmahanto Juwana, a UI

intellectual, a UI lecturer who, and I must declare this here, I just found out he is the rector of General Achmad Yani University in Cimahi, West Java. A higher education institution that has actually been around for a long time, right, Prof? Yes, it's been 30 years. It's been 30 years. Now, he has been serving as rector for 1 year, having received a special order from the Army authorities to expand

this campus. It turns out to be a large campus. I pray that the campus is successful, Prof. Thank you very much. Yes. The second is my colleague, my friend, an intellectual from the Golkar Party, brother Indrajaya Piliang. Yes. Actually, I'm a bit annoyed with him. He hasn't appeared for so long, where has he been? Yeah. Thank you for coming

. Thank you. Prof, I would like to start with this question. You were the first person to appear and provide support for the designation of the separatist movement. Initially, we called the separatism in Papua a terrorism movement. Y what is actually the reason you, Prof, provided that support? Of course, for many people, the fact that someone like

Prof. Hikmahanto Juwana takes a stance means it has gone through a study, and many people are actually asking. Yes. So, it's like this, first if we talk about separatism, let's say, Y don't assume that separatism is something unique that we face in Indonesia. Yes. Because big countries like the United States also face the problem of

separatism. Yes. Texas, until recently, still wanted to separate from the United States of America, Catalonia, yes, and then also Scotland in the UK, they also want to separate. Basque separatism too, Basque, right? Now, there are only two ways they do it. There is a peaceful way, for example, through referendums and so on, but also through violence. Okay.

Now, what I observe is that if, for example, they use violence, they must also be dealt with through force. It cannot be handled by, for example, providing better welfare, let's say. That doesn't work. Yes, violence must be met with violence. Take Northern Ireland in the UK, for instance, how did British soldiers have to deal with it in Northern Ireland? Hm. So, the point is that violence must be

met with violence. Okay. Now, the government has indeed been working on welfare, and I always remind everyone that when we talk about welfare, it's not to show the world that we have done a lot in Papua, no. But welfare is provided because the entire Indonesian nation is entitled to receive it from the government. Therefore, it is the government's duty to provide welfare from Sabang to Merauke.

Okay. Yeah. Now, the problem is what relates to the violence. The government has so far considered that the violence occurring in Papua is categorized as an armed criminal group (KKB) and they want to elevate it to armed separatism. Yes. And now it has been declared that this is an act of terrorism. Yes. Yes. I would like to say this. When talking about violence, we must know

the context. If it is a criminal group, for example, the armed criminal group has no idea of wanting to secede. They are like, well, maybe what people call a motorcycle gang or something criminal . Who should handle this? It is natural for the police to handle it because why ? It's criminal, it's a crime. But if we talk about using violence and having the idea of separatism, then in my opinion, it is not just the police's

authority, but also the TNI (Indonesian National Armed Forces). Because it is clear in the State Defense Law and the TNI Law that the TNI has an obligation to carry out its duties if there is such a thing as armed separatism. Yeah. So, then my question is who are being targeted by those who commit violence in Papua, let's say the OPM or the alleged OPM? Because if it is armed separatism, the targets are usually military institutions or government

agencies. For Bang Akbar's knowledge, when we resisted the Dutch government and Dutch soldiers, our guerrillas were perhaps considered by them as armed separatists. Yes, what does that mean? We were both a war force. Yes. Yes. But one was well-structured and so on. The other might have been just makeshift and so on. We say we were guerrillas, but it was clear who was a combatant and who was a non-combatant,

who could fight and who could not fight . Isn't that right? However, what has been happening in Papua lately and has been going on for a long time, the targets, in my opinion, have been indiscriminate, not distinguishing, not differentiating, right? Whether the target is a military installation or a government agency, sometimes, well, schools are burned down, and civilians are shot. Yes. And when I look at the formulation of Article 6 of the

Terrorism Law, which please display, Bang Akbar also i formulated it, right? It is clear here that terrorism is an act that uses violence. Yes. Isn't the use of violence already there , or threats of violence that result in what? It doesn't result in deaths. No. It results in an atmosphere of terror. Yes. Or widespread feelings of fear.

Because for these terrorists, in their heads, if I can create an atmosphere of terror or fear, then I can dictate to whoever I want to dictate to. If the logical basis for the decision is creating fear and then referring to this law, that is irrefutable. Uh-huh. But the problem is, the KKB movement firstly, didn't just appear out of nowhere, but most importantly, it has a goal called establishing a state. Uh-huh.

So actually, many people ask why it was suddenly downgraded from separatism to just terrorism, as if it only refers to creating an atmosphere of terror and fear itself. Uh-huh. That's actually what people are asking. Not to mention, for example, the question, why only now? Is it because a general, a one-star rank, the head of the Papua BIN, who fell in the line of duty yesterday? There are many

questions. How do you respond to those questions, Sir? Yes. So here's the thing, in my opinion , it's not just now, it has actually been considered by the government. It's just that sometimes decision-making always looks at various perspectives as I understand it. Perhaps the government had great concerns that labeling the KKB or OPM as a terrorist group would be considered wrong from an international perspective.

Okay. Yeah, maybe that's why they were back and forth, back and forth, you know. But actually, if the person shot is, forgive me, an active soldier, that could actually fall under separatism. Yes. But I am sure the government has looked at this, not just at yesterday's case, but also others. I so the government has said that we must

declare this as a terrorist organization. What is the impact? The impact is that we will certainly use the terrorism law. And according to the terrorism law, remember, it needs to be remembered, brother, that this is a crime. If it were an armed conflict, so-called combatants, there could be prisoners of war, but when it's over, it's not a crime, it's finished. What do you call it, making amends and letting everyone go. But here we are

talking about people committing a crime , a criminal act, namely the crime of terrorism. In that case, handling must be done by the police up to the court, court decisions starting from investigation, prosecution, until there is a verdict. Uh-huh. But what if terrorism at the same time can also be considered not just a criminal act? Yes, terrorism that, let's say, already wants to replace the

state ideology, the form of the state. And I'll take the United States as an example. The United States always says it's not a war against Iraq, right, but a war on terror. But in the war on terror, they entered Iraq, they entered Afghanistan, and that was done by their soldiers, their marines. Yes. So what we are fighting is not the ideology that they want to secede, no. What we are fighting is this. Don't let the use of violence create an

atmosphere of terror and widespread fear. That is what we must face, the kind that causes mass casualties. Even if, for example, we look from here, or it causes damage and so on, destruction towards this, it's all already here, already entered into that category. And if, for example, we can label this as a terror group, then the Indonesian government can submit to the Security Council a list of those called terror perpetrators. We know that in Indonesia

, there are individuals, people, figures whom we respect who were included by the United States as terror perpetrators. H right? In my opinion, we are allowed to include them, right? Sri Lanka already included the Tamil Tigers as terror perpetrators because why? The actions they take are using violence and are indiscriminate. Anyone can be hit. Now, therefore, in a context like this, I

support what has been conveyed by the government that they are now considered terror perpetrators, what we call the KKB or whatever the name is, OPM and so on. But what needs to be remembered is this, man. This is not raising the status in Papua to a terror status, you know. There is no such status. We know that if, for example, there is such a status, there is what is called a civil status like we have now. But there is also a civil emergency, a military

emergency. There are statuses like that . But a terror status doesn't exist. Because why? Terrorist acts are not only, for example, if we look in Indonesia, not only in Papua. We in Indonesia, you know, in Java, in Sulawesi, and so on, those acts of terror happen, so it's yes. Okay, yes. You have a different stance, right? Even perhaps from your party. Some

parts of your party seem to have a different stance from you. I uh today, I of course know you, right? Then why are you different from many people regarding that matter? You have a very harsh stance. I and what was said earlier by Prof. Hikmahanto is indeed irrefutable as well. Try showing the violence committed by the KKB this. The list of KKB's violent acts: killing motorcycle

taxi drivers in the village. So it's no longer the military. Right? If we indeed want to call it separatism. Yes. I then the hacking of a woman. Yes. If there is a firefight between special forces and the KKB, that means it's the military, right? That is, what do you call it? Normal. But the killing of two elementary school teachers and everything else is truly beyond what a national force

wanting to defend its country's honor should do. What is Mundra's opinion? Actually, I was even harsher when bodies that had been burned were sent to West Sumatra during the Memena incident. Huh. When the Memena incident happened and, uh...At that time, I immediately contacted all the Papuan leaders, including, uh...Ta Alhamid and others, and I even personally challenged Pigai, Nat Pigai, via WhatsApp. And I said at

the time, do I need to take up my traditional title as Datuk Lengkang Basa? I said, because I have a traditional title that I haven't taken yet. Why? Because Datuk Lengkang Basa means war commander. Even the West Sumatra MUI leader, who is also from Piliang, asked if we needed to take up our daggers and go to war in Papua. Okay. So, I see that from a momentum perspective, it was actually more

appropriate when that happened. And, uh , because of that, uh, the riot incident at the time, which was said to be triggered by information about the teachers, was, uh, exploited by, uh, terror elements in, uh, the OPM to burn things and burn human beings. Hm. They were thrown in alive, right? Now, when it becomes a terrorism event and is labeled as terrorism, what I see is that the KKB element, the OPM element, will actually disappear.

Because a terrorist is something that must be investigated first, right? Yeah. Someone called a terrorist is tracked down first by Densus. People are declared terrorists through a long process. Now, the perpetrators are already known as the KKB. Yes. They are called the KKB. Several factions, right? Yes.

Several factions, and who are they? Uh, and they declare themselves. They also have channels, uh, have their own websites, their own accounts. They also have, uh, media to spread their message to certain individuals like Veronica Koman and others, right? Meaning they are clearly not something obscure. As far as I know, those called terrorists are people who are then, uh, tracked down first before being arrested. Ah, here he is, he's a terrorist. Now, this

organization wants to make the KKB an organ that produces terrorism. Maybe that's what is meant by, uh, the definition of a terrorist. However, that is also the opposite of the efforts made by Indonesia as the chair of the UN Security Council, where we know they proposed a petition draft regarding, uh, the PRR—prosecution, reconciliation, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. Yeah. Is Indonesia actually becoming? Uh, a

pioneer in handling this terrorism in a civilized manner. There is a prosecution process, a rehabilitation process, and a reconciliation process. Now, in Don Kamman itself, 14 countries have already agreed, except for one that is carrying out the process, the one that has the HP, right? Yeah. Now, I see the opposite is happening right now. On one hand, as a civilized nation, if that were done, I think this is the momentum for Indonesia to

receive a Nobel Peace Prize. Meaning, Indonesia, which has even been praised by, uh, who, which intellectual was it? Noam Chomsky. I heard that, I heard his lectures on YouTube, and on his Twitter account, I heard he highly praised how Indonesia handles the separation of Islamic fundamentalism issues from terrorism. He said that Indonesia succeeded in making democracy in a modern state compatible with fundamentalism issues. He said

Indonesia can, the Indonesian state can take a very unique approach. He said they make arrests of terrorists, and even though those radicals have massive followings, the public can still accept it. Now, this system should be applied here. I see it as being quite different between what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is doing and what we are doing domestically. For instance, if the factor of violence they commit, as Prof. Hikmahanto said

earlier, no longer acts or behaves like a force seeking independence, which we then call separatism and so on. But they are attacking civilians. What is your response to that? Well, for me, looking at it, I haven't just been handling Papua for a year or two; it's been more than 5 years that I've been going back and forth to Papua as a founder of the Papua Working Group , and I was the only person allowed to

attend when Theys Eluay passed away and during the first Papuan Customary Council meeting in Sentani; I was the only person with "colonial skin" allowed to enter. Yeah. At that time, Tom Beanal gave a speech in front of his red grave, and all the OPM forces from abroad came, including me, Victor Yeimo, and I was—there was no one with skin like mine in Sentani at that time. I witnessed how they conducted things, meaning, from any

side, we must re-examine Indonesia's track record in Papua. In 1975, there was what was called Operation Koteka, and it was criticized by Mr. Koentjaraningrat. Why? Because Operation Koteka was about giving clothes to the Papuan people. Now, what happened then? The Papuan people were not taught how to wash them. Hm. What happened? Skin diseases emerged. Why? Well, when they were given

instructions on how to wash and given detergent, what happened was that their fish died. What was the end result? The detergent enters their environment, er, their natural environment which was originally clean becomes polluted. Polluted, that's it. So that's where we started noting a lot of criticism. What does that have to do with what I asked? What I want to say is that the Papuan

people will also say that there is more violence committed by the state. Yeah. Indonesia against those who are not OPM . That is what I want to say. This is interesting, Prof. So, as Indra said earlier, our government took an initiative offered to the UN forum and it was accepted, what was it called again yeah. Yes. Yes. What, PRR? Yes, that, but then took actions that are diametrically opposed to what is

done in Papua. How do you respond to that, Prof? No. What was conveyed was related to the resolution regarding those who went to Syria or Iraq, you know, joined ISIS . Hm. After they are caught, then what's the story, what should be done? Should they be tried there or returned, repatriated? Well, we surely say, "Oh, if they are

repatriated, there's a risk, right." Yes. Right? Later they could spread it and so on. We say, "Well, finish it there, right." They can't be brought in here. Well, that is talking about the aftermath of, let's say, ISIS having been destroyed and so on. But what is happening now, we have to look at the context, what it is. Can I, this is the fasting month, so it feels a bit awkward to give this example. But

like this, for example. People engage in marital relations. Okay. Our question is, is it lawful or not legally? Is it wrong or not? If done during the fasting month while fasting, well, it's forbidden. Forbidden. But if at night it's lawful. Lawful. What if it's not within a marriage? Oh, absolutely.

Right? Especially if one of them is paid. Yes. Correct. That could be illegal. It means this, the thing called the use of violence is the same. People at war also use violence. Criminals use violence, but we have to see what the context is. Right? I don't want, for example, for terrorism to be labeled only as something involving Islam. No. Okay.

Whoever falls into those criteria, according to the provisions in our statutes, well, if they meet those criteria, they can be considered a terrorist. I'll take an example, it's actually problematic when Umar Patek uh was tried because he committed acts of terrorism, Bali, the Bali bombing, the same batch as Amrozi and associates. Yes. But he was arrested after so many years, and the terrorism law could not

be applied retroactively by the Constitutional Court. Right? So when he was arrested, I'm sure the prosecutor had problems regarding what basis the person concerned was being tried. Okay. If we take the recent basis of Article 340 regarding premeditated murder, legally speaking. Yes. If I were the lawyer, I would ask the prosecutor, "Mr. Prosecutor, please

prove that Umar Patek knew the people who were killed.""Because Article 340 requires that the victim must be known to the perpetrator." Yes. Yes. Right? That cannot be proven. Now, terrorism is indiscriminate. We don't know who the person is. I just perform an act. But what is the goal? It is not to kill that specific person. It is to create an atmosphere of terror. A situation where people or the government are worried, and ultimately,

we surrender to the perpetrator using this terror. Now, if I say that this has fallen into that category, we need international cooperation. Why? Because if it's about funding, I was once a special envoy for the president, Mrs. Megawati, to Sweden to address the issue of Mr. Hasan Tiro. At that time, Mr. Hasan Tiro was still a Swedish citizen. Our government stated that Mr. Hasan was collecting a lot of money and then channeling it to buy weapons for

the Free Aceh Movement at the time. It was like that. According to Swedish regulations, this was no longer just free speech, but had started to translate into violence. Then their side said, "Is there any proof?" Now, I don't know if there was proof to be able to prosecute him. But regardless, what I want to say is this. If we talk about the use of violence, people may call it separatism and so on, but are they using violence

or not? Are they creating fear or not? Are they terrorizing innocent people or not? If so, it must be resolved. We shouldn't fail to take action just because of this. Because why? Because we have burdens from the past. Yes, perhaps in the past, when we handled the separatism issue, in order to resolve it so that no one in Indonesia would want to secede anymore. Then, that is called a repressive act. I don't agree with that.

Look. Hm. If we look at violence, in my opinion, the perpetrators in the IRA are far more violent. Hm. Northern Ireland. They carried out bombings. Then, I also looked at, for example, Southern Thailand, when I was there— Patani. Yes, Patani, Yala, Narathiwat, when Thaksin was prime minister, I went

there directly, there were around 2,500 Muslims who died. Okay. Because of the repression from this, when I went there, the Trans-Asia road, which was so beautiful and wide enough for five cars to drive abreast, was being blockaded by soldiers; I interviewed people who were caught by the military, shot, and so on. Long story short, I returned from there, and a month later, the Patani hotel I stayed at was bombed.

H. Well, here is what I mean. Separatist groups actually carry out bombings against civilian institutions and the like. Meanwhile, for the Papua case, it hasn't reached that level yet. By giving them the status of terrorists , that will actually...What? Things that have never been done by the OPM could be triggered. They could do that, and the bombings would be carried out extensively. For example, not just in Ilaga, but they could carry out

bombings here. Meaning, if we label them as a terror organ, and we know ISIS spreads bombers everywhere, across the world, they spread them, right? Do we want Papuans who are given that status, who are clearly identified as OPM members, to become clandestine, to become invisible, but to become human bombs? We would actually be making the Indonesian state look very, very, very weak. That is what I want to say. But one more thing before that. So, if I

look at it, terrorism doesn't have to involve bombs. Yes. Right? It could also be with weapons. And we look at the context. If it's in a crowded place, using a bomb would be effective. But if it's in a place that isn't crowded, with few buildings, few people, they might do it , perhaps, as snipers or something else .

The point is that people die, right? Because it doesn't have to be by using a bomb, right? And then, many have to —the important thing is to create an atmosphere of terror. Yes, Professor. What I caught from Indra earlier, he said that by using the label of "terrorism," it could provoke certain parties over there. Now, they have already made statements to do that, and such statements have

already started to appear. How, then, if that is the reality? Well , now, if I take the example of when America was attacked, the 9/11 incident , right? America immediately decided, "We will wipe them out to the roots," and those roots weren't just in America; it went to Iraq, until Saddam Hussein was brought down, right, and to Afghanistan . Libya, Libya.

Yes, Libya, because this is indeed a commitment if we say that I don't want this country to be a victim of terror actors. Now, try it now, if, for instance, we ask our guerrillas from the past, I am sure they would say there is a limit. When must I neutralize the enemy ? This enemy, in the context of the Dutch army or Dutch-owned institutions, versus ordinary people—I won't touch them. Well, it should be like that. If

we talk about separatism, if we talk about humanitarian law. Yes, if it reaches that stage, Professor, maybe it's hard to understand. But again, I certainly think we must look at every possibility that might happen, even those we might not want. As Indra said earlier, The Governor of Papua himself has essentially expressed a refusal. In fact, in the sixth point, the Papua Provincial Government also argues that the central government should

communicate and consult with the UN Security Council regarding the terrorist designation for the KKB. In political terms, this could be interpreted as the Governor of Papua, Mr. Lukas Enembe, seeing an opportunity or possibility to widen the arena of the struggle. Yes, but isn't Indonesia the chair of the Security Council? No, no, not anymore. It is no longer the case now. It is no longer the case now. We

finished our two-year term on the Security Council, it wasn't extended, right? No, no, the two years are over. Okay, it's over. Back to the previous point, Prof. What if, for example, the formal leadership from Papua, you know...Takes a stance like this. Yes. Actually, it's like this, there is no such term as communication and consultation. We only submit

Okay to be included in the list held by the UN Security Council regarding who is considered a perpetrator of terror. Okay. There were Indonesian figures who were included, then we protested and their names were removed, right? Like that. It’s just submitted, that's all. Right? So, there really is no such thing as communication and consultation with the UN Security Council. Every

country has the right to submit a name. But it doesn't mean those countries will necessarily agree to include them on the list of terror perpetrators. I'll take an example, like when Saudi Arabia had a problem in Yemen, right? Then they said, "Let's fight the perpetrators of terror." Yes, but they are a state as well. Coincidentally, their opponent is Iran. Yeah, they wouldn't necessarily be included. Yes, it doesn't work like that.

So, what must be distinguished is that when we submit it, it must be accompanied by evidence of what has been done by those we want to label as perpetrators of terror. We understand up to that stage, Prof. What I meant earlier was, hasn't the risk of that labeling been considered, which could trigger anger or cause their resistance to escalate to a larger scale, compared to when they were just KKB? But then, because

terrorism is designated there, people might suddenly ask, "Are all of us who are dark-skinned like us considered terrorists?" for example, or other groups? I think, I don't...I want to say this, the terrorist groups that have been chased all this time, we know hundreds were arrested yesterday. Yes. Or these groups that commit terror and then adopt the identity of KKB, their cells are also increasing, right?

Yes. Meaning the terror cells are increasing in number and that, that is actually the key, the cells. Now, for instance, we have lone wolf terrorists who act entirely on their own, right? But there are also groups that operate in cells. Yeah. There are stories about those cells and so on. Now, if we talk about the

National Police in the context of terrorism as a crime, they are the ones dismantling where these cells lead. Well, that's the job of Densus 88. Huh? Densus 88 is supposed to be secretive, right? This is closed off. Why is it becoming transparent now? In my opinion, our work in handling terrorism has been very secretive so far. Yes, secretive. If we handle it in secret, we might still need the

cooperation I mentioned earlier, because who knows, there could be funding coming in from abroad. I mean, for terrorist actors in Indonesia, that funding must be frozen, absolutely. I also have to remind you, recently I saw a country, Uganda, for example; when they wanted to get off the list issued by the UN, they had to pay a huge amount—millions of dollars they had to pay. Why? Because the problem is

this: suppose we get what we want, and they get listed. The KKB gets listed as a terrorist organization. Someday, when we want to remove that label because other countries support us and we want to show we are safe and there’s no more terror, it will also cost money. So, this is economic. That’s one point that could certainly happen. But look, how about we look at it from the

perspective that there seems to be no resolution to this? The central government, for example, has already done its best for Papua. Let's say the Jokowi administration has done its best , but why don't they see the good intentions of the central government toward Papua, and the fact that the government is thinking of a solution to stop this? We also know that not everyone in the community there supports the KKB, right

? But, Brother Akbar, stopping that doesn't mean the government simply labels them as terrorists and then resorts to repression. In my opinion, what the government is actually fighting against is the use of violence to create an atmosphere of terror. That is what they want to address. Secondly, I also want to say here: let’s stop thinking that separatism will ever be

completely finished. It might even still be there until the end of time. Yeah. Just look at Scotland in the UK, look at Catalonia in Spain, look at the United States. Countries like that— even Texas wants to, what do you call it? Secede. If it’s like that, then so be it. But the problem now is not to associate it with certain parties that use violence. He he. That's one thing. And second, if there

are diplomatic efforts and so on, okay, resolve those issues. But we must never say that we are going to settle this separatism issue once and for all, you know. If the words "once and for all" are used, then it might end up like East Timor, once and for all. They really did separate. But if I want to say, for example, from what perspective? From the perspective of, uh, uh, the groups, right. The ones fighting, the armed forces of the OPM,

are the Dani and Gedani tribes, right. And they are indeed the ones who want war, they were, perhaps, warriors even before they were born. Uh, then, uh, the Dani, uh, the Amungme . Why the Amungme? Because, uh, their ancestral lands were exhausted by Freeport, right. So, this is...The tribes in Papua that are truly skilled at war and enjoy fighting are just those. The others are not. The Asmat are not. The Asmat are

Muslim, matrilineal, farmers on the outskirts, they aren't. What about, uh, Sentani, they aren't, right? Sentani, uh, only a few. TS Lua is Sentani, he is an Ondafi/tribal chief from Sentani, and they are actually very good at sustaining their lives on the lake. How did they end up fighting, becoming part of combat troops, for instance? Only because they are in the city, and because there is a military base in Sentani, maybe they

just become intelligence, urban intelligence. But what we see is that it is becoming clearer, trying to cover all these cases. Yes. Where did it happen? It's localized, it didn't happen in Jayapura. Are you saying why the terrorism label is needed just for that? No. I want to say that by calling it " terror," the scope of it becomes too broad.

Right. Yes. That's why, if you really want to, uh, handle, uh, Papua in the name of terror, do it only in that region. Don't widen it, you see. Don't widen it too far later on. Actually, the point is, I see that the government is essentially stating that what is being done qualifies as acts of terror. Yeah. Yes, one. Without pointing to a tribe or anything like that. Simply whoever commits acts

that are indiscriminate and cause terror is a terror perpetrator. One. Second, even if later there are groups that are named, but not tribal groups, for example, by specific names and so on And there is proof that they use, uh, violence for the purpose of terror, that is what must then be reported to the United Nations. That these are the people, please, if they receive money transfers or anything like that, you

have the right to freeze them. Yes. We have laws on terrorism financing and so on, and internationally it does exist. If we follow the logic presented by Prof. Hikmahanto earlier, then it's fair for people to connect this as a scenario or a path taken by the government to prevent a situation like what happened in East Timor, right? Yes , something like that.

No, in my opinion, that's not the direction; rather, the government is firm that if there is the use of violence and that violence meets the qualification of terrorism, it must be confronted and resolved. But if it's still separatism, it should also be resolved, but treated as separatism. What does that mean? For instance, there are models like prisoners of war who must be treated well if they are captured, and so on, it's like that.

Because with separatism, as the Professor himself said, there are many treatments that can be applied, right? One of them might be a referendum, for example? Oh, no, that's... But the risk is enormous, right? No, but we are talking now in the context of armed separatism. Okay. Well, in my opinion, the issue of a referendum is no longer a question; why

do I say there's no issue anymore? Because there are two forces. First, the concept in international law. Uti possidetis, which says that if a country inherits what its colonizers left behind. That's one. Second, a popular consultation was already held to confirm this because the handover was done at a different time, right? Yes. It has been done, and there is now an attempt, which we know, to undo that

resolution. Yes. But the international community has already stated that this is part of Indonesia; it is no longer possible to return it. So, if it's about that, it's actually already resolved, right? No. I actually see it this way, Bro. It actually adds to the workload. It doesn't mean that by labeling them terrorists, we won't face the OPM group with force anymore. It's not like that; it actually adds more work, and whose

work is being increased? The National Police and the Military (TNI). The problem is that it creates confusion when we deploy Brimob (Mobile Brigade) there. The thing is, our Brimob are great at urban warfare. Just look. Yes. Now, it's Brimob that's being sent there. Brimob is for urban warfare. Our Brimob's urban warfare strategy is extraordinary. Meanwhile, it's guerrilla warfare out

there. Yes. So, our lack of courage to give a more appropriate status—that we are facing combatants with the TNI—is what remains unclear. If it were me, I'd just send more combatants there, send our infantry there. But they don't want to. But it never gets resolved. No, it's because giving that label is about the status that we are indeed at war there, so it won't be considered a

human rights violation and all that. That's what's happening. Even though our weaponry is getting more modern. The OPM's weaponry is also becoming increasingly modern. I have the photos. Their navy is actually quite impressive . Because it's their navy that controls the rivers. I have the photos of it. They have a navy? Yes, they do. That was what Dr. Farid worked on, right? Dr. After Farid finished solving the GAM issue, he was

given a special assignment by Mr. SBY, but it was private; Dr. Farid gave me the letter, may he rest in peace. I was only given a sheet of paper like this, with nothing else at all. But, Dr. Farid Husein had already gone to all the areas, and he showed the photos to me. I was shocked; their navy is far better. Now, the problem is, are we willing to declare that those we are facing are indeed trained troops? Are we willing to declare that the one who

shot the Head of Binda yesterday was a sniper? From what I saw of that operation, it was a sniper. A sniper means they have a team, they have satellite phones. Haven't we already been doing that with them for a long time? Well, what I mean is we have been at war, as if but it is always said that, so far, the Mobile Brigade (Brimob) is at the front , and we haven't involved organic

military troops. Why don't we just go to war, then? The problem is, what is really going on? Is this an economic issue? I don't know if it's related to Freeport; the events happening now are occurring precisely after Indonesia became the majority shareholder in Freeport. It was precisely after that that the incidents of violence increased. Before that, it was calm. What is going on here? I said okay, this

there are other wars we are moving forward how about it, Prof? Yes. Okay. This will get a bit broad later. Yes. So I okay. Yes. Yes. But back to my issue. The government, as I said earlier, when making policies, certainly thinks about various things. So, it's what they call a "helicopter view." Those of us down

here, because we lack data and so on, might say it should be like this or that. But the government has reached a point in this helicopter view where they see this problem. Okay. Now, it was then decided that, as far as I know, armed separatism has not yet been officially named by the government . Yes. What is always mentioned is KKB, right?

And because it's KKB, the police must always be at the front; that is indeed how it is. But it has never been termed "armed separatism." People say, "It should just be called armed separatism. " And then, if it were labeled as terrorism, it might become lower. Actually, no. If it is already a KKB, these are armed groups. But terrorism implies a desire to create a situation where, because they are weaker in terms of power, they

want to suppress by creating an atmosphere of terror. Yes. Well, that is what is then being used. It hasn't reached the point where the Indonesian government says we have declared this as armed separatism, which then requires the military to step in, right? It hasn't reached that point. Now, that is why then yes

suddenly the designation of terrorism comes out, it’s like taking the wrong path, actually. Ma'am, the way I see it, because it's like this, terrorism should be in a peaceful situation. Okay. Yes, if we talk about armed conflict or armed groups using, what do you call it , armed separatism, that is already a war situation. Yes. So, what applies there is actually humanitarian law.

Hm. Now, currently, we are still in a peaceful situation. Yes. Meaning, everything is considered to be in a peaceful position, actually. Peaceful. There is no military emergency or anything like that. That's why I said earlier, this is not a military emergency or civil emergency. Civil order. Yes, the term is civil order. Yes. This is just normal, it's not an

emergency, it's just normal. However, like in other parts of Indonesia, we are in a state of civil order, right? Yes. There is also terrorism. Is it not being fought? It is being fought too. Now, actually, in Papua, we aren't saying this is an increase in status, oh so how could people be banned. No. Because why? Those who were initially armed criminal groups have already carried

out acts of terror. If for example armed criminal groups, in my opinion, are still just criminal matters. Yes, that's it, Prof. So actually, the government's response raises many questions. But actually, what we are most worried about now is that we don't want to put out one fire only for other fires to appear, as Indra said earlier, that is very wise indeed. Now, and I see, I appreciate Bang Faisal

for helping the government by providing the correct understanding. Right? That's why I said what I want is wisdom like this. Yes. Right? Wisdom, to provide the correct understanding, yes. So people don't think that, oh, now the government labels everyone a terrorist. A terrorist. No. What is the context, and thank God I got the opportunity, so

when Bang Akbar contacted me, I said I'm ready to do it. Because I think there needs to be clarity. Yes, I also said that, Bro. See, that's a friend. So, there is no clash there is no argument, there isn't. The public wants to understand what is happening, right? Just as the public should know that the central government's attention toward Papua has been very great. Yes. Not many people know that

that's true. If we talk about the budget it The central government budget entering Papua is far larger than what comes from Papua in the name of taxes, including from Freeport, which goes to the central government. That's correct. It means that, from that perspective alone, we can see the government's good intentions. Not to mention the Jokowi administration's

policies, at least regarding infrastructure, we can see that, despite many challenges regarding it. But whatever the case, gentlemen, uh my friends, Prof. Hikmah, Mr. Indra, I think the public really needs to hear the thoughts and information about whatever is happening with us, with our nation. And that is the reason we are discussing this. Thank you for being here, Dizar. I thank you.

Viewers. Uh, that's the discussion on Akbar Faisal Uncensored, and today we talked about, uh, what? The positioning of the KKB or any organization that exists in Papua which has then been designated as a terrorist organization. We are growing, this nation is moving forward, and these are our processes of nation-building. Hopefully, in the future, we will become more mature as a nation-state. For that, thank you for watching this program. Wabillahi taufik

wal hidayah. Assalamu'alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuh. Wa'alaikumussalam.