Bringing up a Path of Peace Amid Complexity and Violence in Papua
Annalia Bahar — May 2021
A series of violence is hitting Papua. The Papuan armed group killed several civilians in the past three weeks. Among them are education personnel, motorcycle taxi workers, and a student. Most recently, the Head of the Papua Regional State Intelligence Agency, Brigadier General TNI I Gusti Putu Danny Nugraha, was shot dead by the group known by the government as the armed criminal group (KKB).
This repressive action by the KKB has resurfaced in Papua to coincide with the government’s plan to disburse special autonomy funds, which some Papuans reject.
As a reflection, from 2002 to 2020, Papua and West Papua Provinces have received special autonomy funds of up to Rp126.99 trillion. The Special Autonomy (Otsus) fund is planned to be extended for the next 20 years with an estimated total of IDR 234.6 trillion or almost twice as large as before.
The plan has invited responses from various parties, including some Papuans, who feel that the implementation of Otsus has not been optimal so far. For some Papuans, the Otsus Law should not be just the distribution of money. Any plan should be ensured to provide welfare for Papuans.
As for the evaluation prior to the plan, some Papuan stakeholders feel they are not involved. The Papuan and West Papua Provincial People’s Assembly (MRP), for example, feels ignored, not involved in the process of revising Law Number 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for Papua Province.
This is then considered the background of the latest conflict that occurred in Papua. Apart from that, other things may have triggered the recent violence, such as the fight for Papua’s independence.
The outbreak of violence prompted the government to act. They ordered security forces to chase and arrest all members of the KKB. However, this government’s action has drawn criticism from several parties who feel that the government is not good at reading the map of Papua’s problem. The government is considered to always prioritize a military approach rather than taking other routes such as dialogue.
OPM and Violence in Papua
The National Human Rights Commission or Komnas HAM admitted that the violence that occurred in Papua was primarily due to the act of the KKB, also known as the Free Papua Organization (OPM). The State Intelligence Agency, through its spokesperson, categorizes the OPM as a terror group.
In several reports, the OPM is clearly responsible for the violence and brutal acts in Papua Province in the last three weeks. This was also reinforced by the statement of the TNPPB spokesman, Sebby Sambom, as quoted by several media, claiming that the OPM was “responsible” for the shooting that killed several people in Puncak Regency, Papua recently.
The State Intelligence Agency (BIN) calls the OPM a separatist and a terror group, shown by their merciless murder of several civilians and teachers, and burned houses and schools over the past three weeks.
However, this government statement reaped pros and cons because it is considered to trigger the criminalization of many civilians on charges of being involved in separatism.
Additional Security Troops are not the way out
The security forces are now trying to chase and arrest this armed criminal group (KKB). As reported from various media coverage, the government has deployed additional troops in Puncak Regency. They claim to have succeeded in regaining control of locations around the local airport and several other sites reportedly controlled by the OPM.
The decision to add security personnel has drawn pros and cons. For some, the addition of security forces requires carefulness to distinguish between civilians and the OPM members, challenging to distinguish. Furthermore, the addition of troops is considered not to solve the problem of continuing violence.
The risk includes mistaken shots of civilians. The victims’ families would be angry, and it could trigger “retaliation” that keeps the cycle of violence repeating itself.
Another view arises that the addition of security forces is a natural thing, where ideally, the state will take security measures if there is a threat. The Indonesian government can legally mobilize its military forces to uphold state sovereignty and maintain the state’s territorial integrity.
However, specifically in the case of Papua, it should be noted that the security forces on duty must be troops who really know the geographical conditions, understand the social situations, and understand the culture of the indigenous people there. If not, everyone will lose. The image of the security forces is worsening, civilians become victims, and security will not happen.
Solutions forward
Conflicts in Papua have been happening since the region’s integration. Since then, the OPM, with their Morning Star flag, has always been a scourge for the government and the people of Indonesia.
The desire of some Papuans to be separated from Indonesia was first bridged by the implementation of special autonomy based on the Otsus Law. The law implies broad powers, manifested in various regulations at the local level and the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) establishment.
MRP is a cultural forum for indigenous people to convey and fight for their aspirations. Therefore, this organization could be a starting point for producing policies in the interests of the Papuan people.
Furthermore, all parties, especially the Central Government and the Papuan people, should conduct a joint evaluation. The recent deaths of civilians, teachers, and even security forces should be a momentum that the peaceful path approach needs to be put forward.
Allowing each party to resolve the problem with its authority may only let the violence continue. The people would only reap the disadvantages rather than the benefits of these acts of violence.
Of course, the dialogue pathway with all central and local stakeholders, including local religious and cultural leaders, is far more effective and strategic. Dialogue in the nuances of kinship as fellows of the same nation is indeed a better, if not the best, alternative. Even approaches with parties deemed to be members of the KKB are also necessary if security and peace truly desire every stakeholder.(*)
This piece fully represents the writer’s idea. It does not express any ideas or stances of specific institutions or organizations she works at or is affiliated with.
