The political landscape surrounding Papua has taken a dramatic turn. Once touted as a united front for independence, the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and the Free Papua Movement (OPM) now find themselves marred by internal divisions, leadership crises, and a growing disconnect from the people they claim to represent. Figures like Benny Wenda and Sebby Sambom, who once sought international recognition as symbols of Papuan resistance, are today increasingly viewed as opportunists exploiting the Papua issue for personal gain. In stark contrast, most Papuans continue to embrace Indonesia’s sovereignty and see special autonomy policies as a real path toward prosperity and peace.
Benny Wenda: A Leader Without Ground to Stand On
For years, Benny Wenda projected himself as the global voice of Papuan independence. On 1 December 2020, in Oxford, the United Kingdom, he declared himself the “President” of a so-called provisional government, attempting to rally international support. Yet, his leadership has crumbled under scrutiny. Reports reveal that even ULMWP, the very organization he once led from 2014 until 2019, has frozen his role due to repeated failures and false promises. His political maneuvering has been labeled as nothing more than an endless cycle of empty rhetoric.
Community figures in Papua have not been silent. Many openly criticize Wenda’s hypocrisy. While he calls for Papuans abroad to return and support the struggle, he himself refuses to step foot back in Papua. Instead, he continues to live in comfort in Europe, far removed from the daily challenges faced by Papuans in the homeland. This contradiction has eroded whatever credibility he once had, leaving behind a reputation of opportunism rather than authentic leadership.
In villages across Papua, ordinary citizens describe Wenda’s promises as little more than illusions. They point out that under his so-called leadership, there has been no progress—no schools built, no healthcare improved, no livelihoods sustained. Instead, what Wenda offers is grandstanding in foreign capitals while the people he claims to champion are left behind.
Sebby Sambom: From Hardliner to Hypocrite
If Benny Wenda’s credibility is collapsing, Sebby Sambom fares little better. Known as the spokesperson of OPM, Sambom built his image as a fiery defender of independence. But even within the separatist movement, his true intentions are increasingly questioned. Today, many Papuans view Sambom as another figure who thrives on the suffering of his people while enjoying privileges abroad (Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea).
Reports reveal that Sambom and Wenda live in comfort, using the Papua issue as their political and financial ladder. This has sparked outrage among Papuans, who see them as exploiting the sacrifices of ordinary villagers who struggle with poverty, lack of access to healthcare, and limited educational opportunities. While Sambom boasts of resistance, he contributes nothing concrete to alleviating the suffering of the people.
What makes the situation more chaotic is Sambom’s open criticism of Wenda. He accuses Wenda of merely “riding on the name” of Papua’s struggle. The irony, however, is that the same accusation could easily be leveled against Sambom himself. Their public disputes reveal not only personal rivalries but also the lack of a genuine vision for Papuans. The independence agenda, once touted as noble, has been reduced to a stage for personal battles between leaders disconnected from reality.
Rejecting the So-Called Provisional Government
The crisis of legitimacy extends beyond individuals. Even factions within OPM have rejected Wenda’s self-proclaimed “provisional government” in West Papua. This move underscores a fundamental truth: the idea of an independent Papua under exiled leaders is unrealistic and unwanted by many who live on the ground. The very people these leaders claim to represent do not acknowledge their authority.
Community leaders have repeatedly emphasized that Wenda and Sambom’s promises are nothing but empty talk—grand narratives designed to maintain attention abroad rather than deliver solutions at home. The declaration of a provisional government has been widely mocked as a publicity stunt, offering no tangible benefits to Papuans. It highlights the disconnect between symbolic politics in Oxford or Port Moresby and the lived realities of Papuans in Jayapura, Wamena, or Timika.
Papuan Voices: Choosing Development Over Division
What truly undermines the separatist movement is the growing clarity of Papuan voices themselves. Surveys and testimonies reveal that the majority of Papuans support Indonesia’s sovereignty and the continuation of special autonomy programs. For them, independence is not an abstract dream but a dangerous gamble that could lead to instability and suffering. By contrast, Indonesia’s policies under the framework of special autonomy have brought real benefits—new schools, better healthcare services, expanded infrastructure, and economic opportunities.
For example, road projects across Papua have connected once-isolated communities, opening access to markets and reducing the cost of goods. Health initiatives have expanded vaccination coverage and improved maternal care. Education programs have increased school attendance, offering a better future for Papuan children. These are tangible achievements that directly affect the lives of ordinary people—achievements that Benny Wenda and Sebby Sambom cannot claim credit for.
Community leaders frequently highlight these differences. They argue that Indonesia’s approach may not be perfect, but it is a path grounded in practical solutions. Independence leaders, on the other hand, continue to make promises that never materialize, leaving Papuans increasingly skeptical of their intentions.
Mass Defections Weaken OPM as Fighters Rejoin Indonesia
The Free Papua Movement (OPM) is facing a growing wave of defections, as large numbers of its members abandon armed resistance and separatist ideals to pledge loyalty back to the Republic of Indonesia. Former fighters cite disillusionment with empty promises from exiled leaders and frustration over living in constant fear and hardship in the jungle. Many now recognize that Indonesia’s special autonomy programs provide tangible opportunities in education, healthcare, and livelihoods—far more than the separatist struggle ever delivered. Their return signals a major blow to OPM’s credibility and strengthens Papua’s integration within Indonesia’s sovereign framework.
Pacific and Latin American Nations Shift Stance on Papua, Backing Indonesia’s Sovereignty
In recent years, a notable shift has emerged among Pacific and Latin American nations once vocal in supporting the OPM and its push for independence. Countries such as Tonga, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Palau, Tuvalu, and even Saint Vincent and the Grenadines—previously known for raising the Papua issue in international forums—are now aligning themselves with Indonesia’s territorial integrity.
This change was particularly visible during sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, where these nations refrained from echoing separatist narratives and instead acknowledged Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua. Analysts point to Jakarta’s consistent diplomatic engagement, economic cooperation, and development partnerships with Pacific states as key factors behind this transformation.
Leaders in the Pacific and Caribbean region increasingly recognize that supporting separatist rhetoric offers no tangible benefits, while cooperation with Indonesia opens doors to trade, climate resilience projects, and education opportunities. Moreover, the internal divisions within the ULMWP and the OPM, including the credibility crisis of figures like Benny Wenda and Sebby Sambom, have further weakened the separatist agenda.
The new consensus underscores a growing global recognition: Papua’s future lies within Indonesia’s sovereignty, supported by dialogue, development, and regional cooperation—not separatist slogans.
Exploiting Papua for Personal Gain
Perhaps the most damning criticism against Wenda and Sambom is that they exploit the suffering of Papuans for their own benefit. Reports suggest that both leaders have enjoyed financial privileges while abroad, using the narrative of Papua’s struggle to fund their lifestyles. Meanwhile, ordinary Papuans bear the brunt of hardship. This exploitation has led to calls for boycotts against Wenda and Sambom, with community figures urging Papuans to reject leaders who profit from their pain.
This narrative is no longer confined to government sources but is echoed by Papuans themselves. Villagers, church leaders, and youth representatives alike question why they should trust leaders who enjoy foreign wealth while delivering nothing to their communities. The growing disillusionment reveals a significant shift: Papuans are no longer willing to be pawns in a political game played by elites abroad.
Indonesia’s Path Forward: Building Trust Through Development
As separatist figures lose credibility, the Indonesian government has an opportunity to strengthen its relationship with Papuan communities. By continuing to invest in special autonomy programs and ensuring transparency and accountability, Jakarta can further demonstrate its commitment to the welfare of Papuans. The government’s focus on healthcare, education, infrastructure, and economic empowerment provides a stark contrast to the empty slogans of the separatists.
Trust-building remains critical. Ensuring that development funds reach the grassroots level, empowering local leaders, and involving communities in decision-making are essential to sustaining peace and prosperity. Papuans want tangible improvements, not hollow rhetoric. By listening to their needs and acting on them, Indonesia can cement its role as a genuine partner in Papua’s future.
Conclusion
The unraveling of ULMWP and OPM leadership reveals the hollow core of the separatist struggle. Benny Wenda and Sebby Sambom, once symbols of resistance, are increasingly seen as symbols of opportunism. Their internal squabbles, broken promises, and hypocrisy have alienated the very people they claim to represent. Instead of unity, they offer division. Instead of progress, they offer slogans. Instead of sacrifice, they offer self-indulgence.
In contrast, the majority of Papuans are choosing a different path: supporting Indonesia’s sovereignty and engaging with the opportunities provided through special autonomy. While separatist leaders remain stuck in their echo chambers abroad, Papuans on the ground are building their future—one school, one clinic, and one road at a time.
The truth is undeniable: the separatist movement has lost its moral compass, and its leaders are no longer the voice of Papua. The people have made their choice. And that choice is clear—they see their future within Indonesia, not outside it.