On the brink of Indonesia’s eastern border lies the province of Papua—a hotbed of stunning natural scenery and intricate political conflict. For decades, this land of towering highlands, lush rainforests, and rich ethnic diversity has also been characterized by cycles of turmoil, discord, and intermittent violence between the state and separatist forces. But amidst the gunfire headlines and humanitarian crises, a gentler, more hopeful storylineis emerging: the Indonesian government increasingly resorting to dialogue-facilitated solutions to resolve the Papua conflict.
From Gunfire to Gentle Voices
Previously, responses to separatist violence in Papua were usually dominated by military-style responses. Security operations sought to overwhelm insurgent forces and pacify troubled areas. Such interventions, however, critics complain, usually contributed to fueling resentment, dissipating trust, and rekindling cycles of hatred. Caught in the middle were people—villagers displaced from their communities, families who lost loved ones, young people with a future shrouded in uncertainty—wondering if there would ever be peace.
These days, however, Jakarta’s tone is different. Top government leaders, supported by lawmakers, clerics, and people’s advocates, are making the case for soft-power diplomacy and talks. The tone is shifting from confrontation to conversation, from silencing grievances to listening to them. This shift, while still incomplete, represents a decisive reorientation on how to engage with Papua.
Parliament’s Call for Dialogue
Indonesian House of Representatives members again called on the government to become fully involved in peaceful negotiations in Papua in February of this year. Mafirion, a member of Commission XIII, cited Papuan communities that have endured years of strife. “The people are tired of living in tension. Their energy is drained by serial conflicts,” he stressed, pointing to the need for intensive dialogue as the only possible path forward.
Mafirion drew on the example of President Abdurrahman Wahid, popularly known as Gus Dur, whose stance on the Aceh insurgency more than twenty years ago was a mix of humility, inclusivity, and sensitivity to local identity. Gus Dur believed that listening, hearing what the locals had to say, and empowering local leaders could accomplish what decades of military coercion had not. Lawmakers are now urging the central government to implement this model in Papua in a bid to put local leaders, the Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP), and regional lawmakers at the forefront of peace-building.
Government Reaffirms Commitment to Dialogue
The government has also itself candidly asserted that it continues to support dialogue, even when hostilities intensify. Presidential Communications Office official spokesman Prasetyo Hadi reiterated that “peaceful communication remains the priority,” despite challenges of maintaining dialogue when violent encounters erupt in volatile regencies.
One of the largest challenges was in May 2025, with security officials and civilians being slain during confrontations in Intan Jaya. Among the victims were a pastor and a disabled citizen—tragic incidents that fueled indignation and raised questions about the sincerity of peace initiatives. In spite of this, authorities stated that such explosions, as tragic as they were, would not prompt the state to drop its long-standing trust in diplomacy. “Tough action has to be taken in the short term,” Hadi admitted, “but our overall approach is still diplomacy, not brutality.”
Why Militarized Solutions Fall Short
Analysts argue that the persistence of violence in Papua emphasizes the failure of security-intensive solutions. Vidhyandika Djati Perkasa from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) explained that applying inorganic security forces—foreign troops called in to Papua—has had the effect of alienating indigenous groups. “The more space security occupies, the less opportunity there is for indigenous institutions like the MRP or DPR Papua to contribute to peace,” he stated.
The result has been a vicious cycle in which heavy security presence breeds resentment, resentment fuels separatist rhetoric, and violence is employed to rationalize more militarization. Breaking the cycle, analysts say, entails inclusive negotiations that take into account Papuan grievances—ranging from political aspirations, human rights, economic inequalities, and cultural recognition.
Equal Terms, Equal Respect
Calls for dialogue are not just emerging out of Jakarta but also from Papuan representation in the national parliament. Senator Yorrys Raweyai, representing Central Papua, stressed that peace must be built on “equal terms,” not Jakarta’s single-party diktats. “True dialogue is sitting down together as partners,” he appealed, urging the government to treat Papuan leaders as co-authors of peace, not mere recipients of policy.
West Papuan senator Filep Wamafma took this a step further, demanding an Aceh solution for Papua along the 2005 Helsinki peace agreement model. The peace agreement ended decades of conflict in Aceh through political concessions, autonomy, and integration of former combatants into civil society. This model transplanted into Papua—adapted to local contexts—could, in Wamafma’s view, form the foundation for lasting stability.
For Papuans themselves, the attraction of dialogue has a private resonance. In towns like Wamena and Timika, citizens have witnessed how militarized clashes evict families, disrupt schooling, and drain livelihoods. To them, the promise of dialogue is not only political relief but also hope for being able to live without fear.
Maria, a Jayapura community health worker, described the psychological toll of uncertainty: “If there is news about shootings happening in the highlands, people here even become frightened. Parents call back children from school. Life is as if it’s suspended. Dialogue makes us hopeful that maybe one day we can live normally without the threat of gunshots.”
Building a Framework for Lasting Peace
Experts point out several key pillars that must underpin Indonesia’s dialogue-oriented approach to the Papua conflict:
- Participative Inclusiveness: The dialogue must include not only government officials but also traditional leaders, church officials, women, youths, and civil society actors.
- Cultural Sensitivity: Policies must respect Papuan identity, symbols, and indigenous forms of governance. Papuan cultural dignity acceptance can help in the restoration of trust.
- Development with Justice: Economic development programs must give the highest priority to local communities such that they benefit directly from natural resources and are not exploited by foreign investors.
- Human Rights Accountability: Investigations into the past history of violence—carried out both by security forces and separatist forces—must be open and legitimate to heal open sores.
- Sustained Commitment: Conversation cannot be a one-off event but must be institutionalized as a process for decades, even retaining its vigor during times of heightened violence.
Learning from Aceh
The Aceh peace process continues to serve as a powerful model for policymakers. In Aceh, years of armed conflict gave way to earnest discussions following realizations by the two parties—rebels and government—that violence no longer served any purpose. The Helsinki Agreement of 2005 granted Aceh significant autonomy, integrated ex-combatants into politics, and allowed the province to maintain its religious and cultural distinction.
While Papua’s situation is unique—with its own history of grievances and ethnic dynamics—the lesson is the same: peace lasts not from victory on the battlefield but from negotiated trust.
The Road Ahead: Challenges and Opportunities
The path to dialogue in Papua is fraught with difficulty. There is entrenched distrust, and armed elements remain in outlying areas. Economic grievance sits atop resentment, as resource-rich areas often do not yield much reward for local communities. Beyond that, political polarization in Jakarta sometimes makes enduring policy more difficult.
But there are hopes. Younger generations of Papuans, better educated and connected by the digital age, are insisting more on peace, justice, and inclusive development rather than a battle of guns. Religious and adat leaders continue to be moral pillars, espousing reconciliation, not revenge. And with parliament and government now singing from the same hymnbook of dialogue, the political room for another approach is larger than at any moment in recent history.
Conclusion
Papua’s narrative has been recounted for too long with violence—armed clashes, troop deployments, rebel attacks, and humanitarian crises. But today Indonesia can script a different narrative. By taking a dialogue-led approach, based on humility, inclusivity, and respect, the government can start a new course—one in which Papuans are not Jakarta’s subjects but co-writers of their fate.
Peace will not come overnight. It will require patience, perseverance, and genuine empathy. But if Indonesia can stick to its commitment to dialogue—learning from past mistakes and taking inspiration from the success of Aceh—the possibility of lasting, dignified peace in Papua is no longer an illusion. It is a promise to be kept.