The conflict in Papua shows no signs of ending. In fact, after implementing the Papua special autonomy policy in 2001. When will West Papua independence resolution finally happen?
Discover the Ideas & Perspective of West Papua Independence Resolution
One of the reasons is the gap in views between the central government and pro-independence groups. It is especially with armed groups such as the Free Papua Movement (OPM) or (KKB), on ending the conflict. Another challenge is the lack of understanding within the government and the OPM/KKB and other pro-independence groups in Papua. Apart from some follow-up issues that also influence conflict resolution efforts.
Another problem is the fragmentation and polarization of pro-independence groups in conducting dialogue and negotiations. The problem arises both within their internal circles and with the central government. The central government’s polarization or, more precisely, in the centers of power is in their “polemic” about the need for dialogue about West Papua Independence.
Through UN Resolution 2504
The group that disagrees with dialogue comes mainly from the ultranationalist ranks. They insist on dialogue and speculate that the Papua issue is final after the people’s income determination (PEPERA). When some Papuans voted unanimously to join Indonesia in 1969, the United Nations General Assembly ratified their decision.
Therefore, according to this faction, the West Papua Independence issue in Indonesia’s domestic problems does not need to be addressed anymore. Raising the issue of Papua means interfering with the sovereignty of the Republic of Indonesia so that, for them, there is no compromise regarding Papua.
The Reformist Faction Perspective
The reformist faction agreed to dialogue and end violence, which is the best way, especially in the current era of democratization and transparency, to realize Papua as a land of peace within the framework of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI). According to this group, if we struggle to resolve the West Papua Independence issue, violence will never end in Bumi Kasurai.
The uncontrolled deployment of special autonomy over the last 20 years has become an impediment to identifying the cause of the problem. This is mainly about forming a truth and reconciliation commission as mandated by the Papua Special Autonomy Law, which has not been fully addressed and is a joint commitment to resolving the conflict.
National Human Rights Commission Perspective
Last year, in 2021, the National Human Rights Commission held a marathon discussion to gather ideas from academics and intellectuals for ministries and institutions. They developed a guideline for ending violence in Papua.
The Commission identified problems and mapped out the actors, both within the government and groups in Papua that support or oppose dialogue. They are also trying to accommodate marginalized voices, both in West Papua and at the center. The Commission at least has an initial roadmap toward conflict resolution.
In addition, they are also fully aware that the trust of the Papuan people is at its lowest point. Moreover, the suspicion from the center can undermine plans for conflict resolution. The dialogue was not carried out directly but in several rounds, such as the Aceh case, which began with a gradual and serial pre-dialogue to explore and identify both parties’ actors, materials, and steps.
The social memory of the Papuan people for the long history of violence has an impact on distrust and dissatisfaction with the government. This communal memory has evolved into one of the commission’s major works. Thus, the Commission needs to have several scenarios that are not built on empty assumptions and needs to establish partnerships with other civil society groups, such as Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), in the context of Abdurrahman Wahid or Gus Dur’s thinking.
Nahdlatul Ulama Perspective
When Gus Dur became President, he emphasized direct communication with the public rather than through formal government instruments. Gus Dur once said that he trusted information from religious and community leaders (Suaedy, 2018). Because of this, Gus Dur views the West Papua Independence resolution movement as a dialogue partner. He did not see them as a separatist group. It is a label that we have never encountered in the treasures of Gus Dur’s thoughts and actions.
The practice of direct communication in the style of Gus Dur was initially shown by President Joko Widodo. It is clear when he visited and had direct dialogue with community leaders, traditional leaders, and religious leaders in Papua. This momentum might serve as a starting point for further discussion. However, various state problems have seized the President’s concentration so that direct communication has decreased in intensity. It is especially during the COVID-19 pandemic in the last two years. For this reason, Vice President Ma’ruf Amin can take over this role.
Final Takeaway
In the two remaining years of Jokowi’s presidency, Ma’ruf is expected to be able to initiate and accelerate the west papua independence resolution. It is done in addition to laying the foundation for accelerating the development of Papua’s welfare. If this is achieved, the leadership of Jokowi and Ma’ruf Amin can provide a meaningful legacy. It can be efforts to end violence and conflict in Papua. Don’t let Papua sink into the mud of endless violence and conflict.
