Kewenangan pemerintah nasional dan provinsi di Kepulauan Solomon diuji

Joseph D. Foukona & Graeme Smith

Kepulauan Solomon telah menjadi berita utama di sejumlah media internasional pekan lalu, termasuk di New York Times, mengenai perjanjian sewa pulau di Kepulauan Solomon.

Menelaah kesepakatan empat-halaman, perjanjian kerja sama strategis atas Pulau Tulagi, yang dipersiapkan dengan buru-buru penuh kecerobohan, antara pemerintah Provinsi Tengah di Kepulauan Solomon dan perusahaan Tiongkok, Sam Enterprise Group Ltd, terlihat jelas bahwa apa yang disetujui termasuk hak pembangunan eksklusif kepada konglomerat Tiongkok itu sebenarnya jauh di luar wewenang pemerintah provinsi.

Sumber daya mineral, perikanan, hutan, tanah – ini semua adalah ranah pemilik tanah adat, sementara pemerintah pusat hanya berperan sebagai tuan tanah secara teoretis atas lahan yang terdaftar serta pemilik bersama sumber daya mineral, yang bertugas memberikan izin usaha pertambangan.

Pemimpin provinsi itu juga kemudian dengan lekas membantah perjanjian itu setelah liputan New York Times, mengakui dalam wawancara dengan Radio New Zealand bahwa mereka tidak mungkin menyewa Tulagi, dan bahwa tidak ada apa pun dari perjanjian itu akan terjadi.

Namun, meski Xi Jinping tidak akan mungkin memerintahkan pembangunan tempat rahasia di Pulau Tulagi, proyek tersebut mungkin akan diteruskan namun dalam bentuk lainnya, terutama jika Sam Group berhasil mengamankan pendanaan di Tiongkok. Jika berhasil, kurangnya pengalaman perusahaan itu di Pasifik, dapat menyebabkan situasi yang mirip dengan Pacific Marine Industrial Zone di sebelah utara Papua Nugini, upaya pertama oleh perusahaan Tiongkok untuk mendirikan kawasan ekonomi khusus di Pasifik.

Di kawasan itu, politisi-politisi dan kontraktor setempat sedang bersengketa dengan perusahaan Tiongkok tersebut. Manajemennya bersembunyi di sebuah kantor di Madang karena pendanaan mereka dari Bank Exim Tiongkok perlahan-lahan dibuang untuk hal-hal trivial seperti gerbang yang bernilai Kina 4 juta ($ 1,7 juta).

Juga luput dari perhatian media-media besar adalah kasus lainnya, yang membuktikan bahwa kesenjangan antara pemerintah nasional dan provinsi seperti ini ada positif dan negatifnya bagi Tiongkok. Pada 17 Oktober kemarin, Pemerintah Provinsi Malaita, juga di Kepulauan Solomon, menerbitkan Komunike Auki, menegaskan adanya proses bagi mereka perihal hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri.

Alasan yang memicu keinginan kelompok-kelompok di Malaita, untuk membentuk pemerintahan sendiri adalah karena keputusan pemerintah pusat, untuk mengalihkan pengakuan diplomatik dari Taiwan ke Tiongkok, yang dianggap sebagai proses yang tergesa-gesa tanpa konsultasi yang memadai dengan masyarakat. Di bawah anak judul ‘core beliefs and freedoms’ komunike itu tertulis kebebasan beragama, dan ‘oleh karena itu Malaita menolak Partai Komunis di Tiongkok dan sistemnya yang didasarkan ideologi ateis’.

Keputusan pemerintah nasional Kepulauan Solomon untuk beralih ke Tiongkok, telah menimbulkan desakan oleh pergerakan Malaita for Democracy (M4D) dan beberapa kelompok lain, agar Malaita dapat menentukan nasibnya sendiri, menyatakan keinginan mereka untuk menjauhkan diri dari ikatan diplomatik dengan Republik Rakyat Tiongkok, seperti yang diputuskan oleh pemerintah pusat, serta komitmennya untuk melindungi tanah dan sumber daya alam mereka dari ‘investor yang amoral’.

Aspirasi untuk kemerdekaan Malaita dan keinginannya untuk menentukan nasib sendiri ini, punya sejarah yang panjang. Pada 1940-an, gerakan Ma’asina Ruru di Malaita berusaha menuntut hak untuk menentukan nasib sendiri. Pada 1970-an, pergerakan Western Breakaway dibentuk, dimana Provinsi Barat memboikot perayaan Hari Kemerdekaan Nasional pada 7 Juli 1978. Gerakan ini lalu bangkit kembali pada 2000 sebagai Western State Movement, yang berakhir dengan apa yang disebut sebagai kudeta yang tidak diketahui oleh siapa pun. Pada 2015, Majelis Provinsi Malaita meresmikan resolusi tentang kedaulatan Malaita.

Provinsi Malaita memiliki jumlah populasi yang besar dibandingkan dengan provinsi lainnya di Kepulauan Solomon, namun ia tetap terbelakang. Hanya 4,71% lahan di provinsi ini yang terasing, ini berarti sebagian besar tanah dan SDA di Malaita berada dalam domain adat, di bawah wewenang langsung pemilik tradisional. Meskipun demikian, pemerintah pusat memiliki kuasa atas alat-alat dan proses transaksi atas lahan tersebut.

Instrumen-instrumen seperti itu sering kali lebih menguntungkan investor, sementara pemilik sumber daya dibiarkan menjadi rent seeker (pemburu rente) dan penerima royalti. Hal ini juga menyebabkan adanya jurang pemisah antara pembuat keputusan di tingkat nasional dan provinsi. Keputusan pemerintah pusat untuk beralih ke Tiongkok, dan segera mengundang investor Tiongkok ke Kepulauan Solomon tanpa masukan dari pemerintah provinsi dan pemilik sumber daya, adalah bukti kesenjangan ini.

Pemerintah Provinsi Malaita meminta MP-nya untuk datang ke Auki dan berpartisipasi dalam pertemuan tinggi pemimpin-pemimpin yang diadakan pada 16 Oktober, untuk membahas persoalan seputar peralihan ke Tiongkok, termasuk di antaranya desakan untuk menentukan nasib sendiri. Majelis Provinsi Malaita dan lima MP dari Malaita turut hadir, dan sebuah komunike dikeluarkan pada hari berikutnya. Sejumlah MP dari Malaita yang pro-Tiongkok tidak menghadiri pertemuan itu.

Desakan Provinsi Malaita untuk hak menentukan nasib sendiri ini bukan hanya datang dari daerah ini. Provinsi-provinsi lain di negara itu telah mengutarakan sentimen yang serupa, semua diakibatkan oleh pemusatan kekuasaan di tingkat pemerintah pusat, tanpa adanya kemajuan yang berarti terjadi di tingkat provinsi. Ada kekhawatiran yang masuk akal dari kedua pihak, menegaskan jurang pemisah yang umumnya terjadi di negara-negara dengan sistem pemerintahan federal.

Ketika kewenangan yang dilimpahkan ke pemerintah tingkat provinsi terbatas, ada ruang bagi oknum-oknum dari luar untuk menargetkan hubungan pemerintah nasional yang lemah, ke provinsi-provinsi yang lalu berujung ke destabilisasi. Hal ini mungkin dilakukan demi keuntungan atau sebagai langkah ekonomi yang diinginkan oleh negara.

Namun, pemerintah provinsi juga dapat menjadi sasaran yang lebih baik, karena ia lebih jarang diawasi oleh media dan diamati oleh masyarakat sipil. Faktor ini mungkin dapat menjelaskan kenapa negara-negara yang kewenangannya terpusat seperti Korea Selatan, yang juga homogen dalam hal etnik dan bahasa, secara umum lebih sulit dipengaruhi Tiongkok.

Peralihan hubungan diplomatik, dari Taiwan terhadap Tiongkok, diharapkan akan membawa pembangunan dalam berbagai sektor di Kepulauan Solomon. Pemerintah pusat harus melakukan analisis yang cermat, sebelum menandatangani perjanjian apa pun terkait pembangunan yang penting seperti ini. Legislasi dan mekanismenya harus diperkuat atau dirombak, untuk memastikan wewenang antara pemerintah pusat dan provinsi dijaga dengan baik, agar bisa melindungi kepentingan masyarakat setempat yang merupakan pemilik SDA di tingkat provinsi. (Lowy Institute/The Interpreter)

Editor: Kristianto Galuwo

Long strand of DNA from Neanderthals found in people from Melanesia

Many of us have at least a little Neanderthal DNA inside us Marcin Rogozinski / Alamy Stock Photo    Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2220381-long-strand-of-dna-from-neanderthals-found-in-people-from-melanesia/#ixzz630AemCaX
Many of us have at least a little Neanderthal DNA inside us Marcin Rogozinski / Alamy Stock Photo Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2220381-long-strand-of-dna-from-neanderthals-found-in-people-from-melanesia/#ixzz630AemCaX

Many people have DNA inside them that they inherited from extinct hominins like the Neanderthals – and now we know that in some cases it isn’t just tiny snippets but long stretches.

Over the past decade, genetic analysis of human DNA has revealed that ancient humans must have interbred many times with other hominins such as Neanderthals. The result is that DNA from these extinct groups can be found in many human populations today.

In particular, everyone whose primary ancestry was outside Africa carries some Neanderthal DNA, while many people from Asia – especially South-East Asia – have DNA from the mysterious DenisovansSome of this DNA may have been advantageous for modern humans.

Read more: Denisovans: The lost humans who shared our world

However, these studies were limited to small pieces of DNA. “Most people have focused on looking at single nucleotide changes,” says Evan Eichler at the University of Washington in Seattle. This means just one “letter” of a gene has been altered.

Now Eichler and his team have gone further. “This is one of the first papers that looks at bigger events like deletions and duplications of sequence,” he says. These larger genetic changes will have had more important effects on human biology.

The researchers looked at the DNA of people from Melanesia, as the levels of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA are highest in these populations. They found evidence of much longer chunks of archaic DNA in this population.

Two large pieces of DNA were found that originate from ancient hominins. One is on chromosome 16 and comes from Denisovans. It contains two duplicated sections. The other is on chromosome 8 and comes from Neanderthals. It includes both a deletion and a duplication.

Duplications are significant because they allow the original gene to be kept, if it is useful, while the copy is free to change and potentially develop a new function. “A duplication is a type of mutation that lets you have your cake and eat it too,” says Eichler.

Both chunks of DNA show signs of having been selected for by evolution. They seem to have been advantageous and thus become more common in the Melanesian population over the centuries.

Test run

“The archaics have contributed to the success of humans that left Africa,” says Eichler. Neanderthals and Denisovans lived in Europe and Asia for hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans emerged from Africa, so they would have evolved adaptations to the different climates, foods and diseases. These useful genes “were kind of test-run in our precursors”, says Eichler. “They’re basically borrowed.”

However, it is unclear what the advantages have been. “I think the biggest challenge is proving the function,” says Eichler. This will be difficult because the genes are only found in humans, so animal studies will not help, and they have been duplicated and then subtly altered. “You’re talking about a set of genes which are a geneticist’s worst nightmare.”

Journal reference: ScienceDOI: 10.1126/science.aax2083

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2220381-long-strand-of-dna-from-neanderthals-found-in-people-from-melanesia/#ixzz630AR7mwx

Bougainville’s ‘Melanesian way’ beyond the referendum

Source: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au

Bougainville knows far better than Britain that a referendum vote to go or to stay is only the first mountain. Then the second mountain must be climbed—the negotiation to turn the outcome into a reality.

For decades, Bougainville has been trekking towards the first summit that’s now in view—the vote on independence or greater autonomy, to be held from 23 November to 7 December.

The referendum question reads:

Do you agree for Bougainville to have:
1. Greater Autonomy; or
2. Independence

In Bougainville, 200,000 people are enrolled to vote; 12,000 registered voters are in Papua New Guinea, and a further 200 are in Solomon Islands, Cairns and Brisbane.

The Lowy Institute prediction is that 75% of voters will choose independence, driven by separate ethnic identity, residual animosity from the war years, and the failure of the current model of autonomy.

PNG’s and Bougainville’s leaders have always known about the second mountain that lies beyond the referendum. That’s because both peaks were established by the Bougainville Peace Agreement, signed in 2001.

The peace was a ‘complex agreement, produced by a succession of compromises made during more than two years of often intense negotiations (June 1999 to August 2001)’. The deal ended a conflict that ran from 1988 to 1997, with an estimated death toll ranging from 3,000 up to 20,000.

The referendum result isn’t binding on PNG. The second mountain climb calls for consultation on the outcome between the PNG and Bougainville governments. And even if that process produces an agreement, there’s a further stage. The final say on any deal, based on the referendum, rests with the PNG parliament, which can accept or reject.

Constitutional lawyer Anthony Regan, an adviser to Bougainville parties in the peace process since 1994, has just published a study of the vote, The Bougainville referendum: law, administration and politics. He says the vote could produce one of three outcomes: ‘a “yes” vote in favour of greater autonomy, which the national government endorses; a “yes” vote for independence, which the national government endorses; or a “yes” vote to independence, which the national government opposes’.

Regan says either greater autonomy or independence will need extended transition periods:

A ‘yes’ to independence, in particular, would require significant new institutions to be established. These could be expected to include a judiciary, a public prosecutor and a public solicitor, an auditor-general, a taxation collection agency, a foreign affairs agency and so on. The experience of the ABG [Autonomous Bougainville Government] in establishing new agencies where none existed is that it takes time and resources.

Regan’s book was launched last Thursday at an Australian National University symposiumon the referendum.

The optimism about what’s possible was well expressed by two of the speakers, Rose Pihei, of the Bougainville Integrated Community Learning Centre, and Barbara Tanne, of the Bougainville Women’s Federation, who is also a representative of the churches of Bougainville.

Pihei said ‘excitement is flooding Bougainville’, and Tanne said the referendum is ‘a window of opportunity for Bougainvilleans to realise their dreams’.

Expressing confidence that there’ll be a strong vote in favour of independence, two former independence fighters, James Tanis (‘the moment has arrived’) and Dennis Kuiai, put much of their focus on what’ll happen after the vote.

Kuiai is now acting secretary of the Department of Peace Agreement Implementation in the ABG, while Tanis is the peace envoy of Bougainville’s president and an adviser to the PNG government.

Kuiai said there’s ‘more confidence and trust in how PNG supports the process’. Tanis said PNG and Bougainville owned both referendum questions and paid tribute to PNG’s approach: ‘This is not a decision between a coloniser and the colonised. This is a decision taken by citizens, a decision between ourselves, to find a new relationship between ourselves.’

Both speakers invoked the ‘Melanesian way’ (consultation, conversation and consensus) as the key to how the two governments will deal with the referendum result. Kuiai said:

Using the Melanesian way of doing things, we know for sure we will finally get there. And this outcome we will agree on will be something good for PNG in terms of the sovereignty of PNG and in responding to the aspirations of the Bougainvilleans. The post-referendum has a lot of challenges.

One Melanesian-way analogy offered is that Bougainville is the daughter ready for marriage, and that PNG is the father who’s obliged to prepare for that marriage.

Bougainville is signalling the need for independent mediators to push along the Melanesian way—one PNG mediator and one international. The international mediator could come from New Zealand, based on its crucial role in securing the peace agreement; names mentioned are former prime minister Helen Clark and former foreign minister and secretary-general of the Commonwealth Don McKinnon.

With the vote in sight, Bougainville can embrace PNG to prepare for the next tough climb.

The departure of Peter O’Neill as PNG’s prime minister is an unspoken element in the warm sentiments. He didn’t give much time or cash to Bougainville, always putting the stress on a united PNG. In Melanesian-way fashion, O’Neill did keep the process going, even while abhorring where it could lead and pushing it off as much as possible. The Melanesian way can be about delay as much as about discussion or decision.

PNG now faces the cost of not having put in the resources to make a clear success of Bougainville’s autonomous government, which has been in operation since 2005.

Regan’s judgement is that two decades of peace created ‘more robust relationships’ between Bougainville and PNG. That history will matter, he says, ‘because it’s very unclear what will happen from the consultations after the vote’.

Graeme Dobell is ASPI’s journalist fellow. Image: Antman!/Flickr.

Peter Donigi and Indigenous Land Rights in PNG

By John Endemongo Kua

Peter Donigi
Peter Donigi

All good things come to an end, and as such, the life of an outstanding scholar and gentleman, had come to pass yesterday morning, here in Port Moresby.

The late Donigi and myself, did not see eye to eye on many national issues of importance to the nation not because of the principles behind the issues, and nor did we allow each other the opportunity to discuss or debate issues of importance to the state or international concerns, simply because he was a Sepik and I a Chimbu, and we were rallying, behind the powerful men of post independence politics, with him standing stoically behind Somare as a kinsman and myself behind Okuk.

For the better or worse, most political cadres were consumed in this shallow and empty game of cloak and dagger political manoeuvres, that destabilised the national progress in many respects to the detriment of this nation state.

Despite the hostile environment of ethnic and regional divide, reason prevailed in men of valour, such as Peter Donigi, who was an astute scholar in law and sociology, and was the chief advisor to the longest serving prime minister, in Sir Michael Somare.

I found a deeply, rooted alliance, with him, where in, he was able to premise the greatest legal blunder, crafted by the Caucasian race of European, who had frolicked the vast oceans for new lands and territories, which they annexed with force of their own self serving inequitable laws that nullified the interests of the indigenous people who were natives of the land.

Donigis arguments, on indigenous land rights, had received international attention, peaking with the United Nations General Assembly, which had passed a resolution, declaring that the indigenous people of any nation state, possessed an inalienable claim to land upon occupation and usage.

Unfortunately his intellectual ability to logical reasoning could not find anchor the political masters of our nation, including the dinosaurs of PNG politics, particularly his own Sepik Kukurai, where he had difficulty in convincing that the land actually belonged to the indigenous inhabitants, including its other properties such as the vegetation and it’s subsoil elements.

In 2005, I called into his office at the UPNG, where he was tutoring in law, and probed him on the possibility of introducing amendments to the existing legislation particularly in relation to inorganic resources in minerals and hydrocarbons. He may have had a bad day, or his mind was engaged or something else was happening, but he reluctantly dismissed my notion of an amendment by pronouncing, his motion in court applying S. 19 of the constitution to interpret the relevant mining and petroleum laws in accordance with S. 53 to include the rights of indigenous customary land right holders.

There was nothing I could do as a non lawyer, but to take my fight at the legislative front to rest my case, and to prove to Donigi that people power can be harnessed to change the legal framework for the better and faster route to restoring equitable rights.

Luck struck, on the 18 July, 2008, when I stumbled over Boka Kondra, the member for North Fly, who had presented a grievance debate on the misgivings of the gigantic Ok Tedi mine in the Star Mountains, which had little or no benefit for the indigenous land owners.

I approached him, that day, and convinced him that, he had the privilege to move a private members bill to amend the Mining Act, to remove the state, and restore the indigenous land owners as the legitimate proprietors.

Kondra accepted my proposal and gave me a blanket power of attorney to co ordinate the drafting of the amendments on the 03 of February, 2009.

I fired the instructions, to Pakgne Lawyers, to draft out the amendments to the Mining Act of 1992 and the Oil and gas Act of 1998.

The private members bills were sent to the parliamentary legal counsel for recourse, and had subsequently put on the notice paper for debate by the clerk of parliament.

For presentation and elaboration, I could think of nobody, better than Donigi, and therefore rang him and invited him to the presentation at the state function room, where he authoritatively convinced those present that, such was the law.

We endured a long campaign with him finally, drafting a master piece legislation, which Somare had shunned, and now O’Neill likewise.

Boka Kondra got caught in the maze of self glorification and aborted the proposed amendments, in exchange for a cabinet post.

With the death of the great champion of indigenous peoples land rights, I now declare war the puppets of foreign investors.