From Intan Jaya to National Unity: Indonesia’s Balanced Response to the Papua Conflict

In the early hours of October 15, 2025, the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI) launched a decisive and high-impact operation in the remote Soanggama Village, Homeyo District, Intan Jaya Regency, Papua Tengah (Central Papua) Province. The mission, which resulted in the neutralization of 14 members of the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB-OPM) and the capture of their key base in Soanggama, marked a significant moment in the country’s ongoing struggle to secure peace and stability in the region. The government quickly framed the mission not only as a security victory but also as a necessary enforcement of national law, aimed at protecting civilians and countering separatist activities that have long destabilized the region.

Yet, as Indonesia celebrates this tactical success, it is also navigating a broader, more complex narrative—one that intertwines firm law enforcement with a genuine commitment to humanitarian engagement and dialogue. This article examines the operation’s implications through three lenses: military action, state legitimacy and security, and the Indonesian government’s continued efforts to seek peaceful reconciliation in Papua.

 

A Tactical Victory: Reclaiming Territory and Restoring Civilian Safety

The Soanggama operation was months in the making. Intelligence reports had long indicated that this area was under the firm control of TPNPB-OPM’s Kodap VIII, a group led by Unbdius Kogoya known for its consistent armed attacks on security forces, public infrastructure, and civilians. The group had reportedly turned the Soanggama village into a base of operations, instilling fear among the local population and threatening state authority. On the ground, residents faced increasing intimidation, forced labor, and the presence of heavily armed insurgents operating outside the framework of Indonesian law.

With this context, the TNI, under the command of Komando Operasi TNI Habema, planned a precise and coordinated strike to dismantle the group’s operational center. The operation, which reportedly killed 14 insurgents and wounded several others, was followed by the swift occupation of their base. This strategic gain allowed the TNI to establish a permanent tactical post in the village, ensuring the area would not be retaken by separatist forces in the future.

More than just a military conquest, this move carried a symbolic message: that the Indonesian government remains committed to enforcing peace and safeguarding its citizens in all corners of the archipelago, even the most remote. Residents of Soanggama, long isolated and under pressure, were reportedly relieved by the return of state protection. With the separatists routed, villagers were finally able to move freely, participate in daily activities, and reengage with government services without fear of reprisal.

 

Rule of Law and the Mandate of the State

While the military’s role in Papua has always been a contentious subject—both within Indonesia and internationally—the government has repeatedly defended its right to uphold the constitution and enforce national law. The TPNPB-OPM, while often described by sympathizers as a liberation group, has consistently employed tactics that the state classifies as criminal, terroristic, and threatening to civilian safety. Attacks on schools, shootings of medical workers, and the destruction of public property have escalated over the years, leaving the government little choice but to act.

The Indonesian state, like any sovereign entity, bears the responsibility to protect its territorial integrity and the safety of its citizens. In areas where separatist militias operate outside legal norms, engaging in violence and exploiting indigenous communities, the role of the military becomes unavoidable. The Soanggama operation was therefore not simply an armed engagement—it was an act of enforcing the rule of law in a region where criminal insurgency had rendered civil governance nearly impossible.

That said, Jakarta has made it clear that these operations are not aimed at Papuans or indigenous communities but rather targeted at armed groups who operate illegally and pose threats to public safety. By reclaiming Soanggama, the government is not only dismantling militant networks but also creating space for civil institutions—schools, clinics, and community offices—to resume operations, helping to rebuild trust between the state and the people.

 

Dialogue and Development: Indonesia’s Evolving Approach in Papua

Perhaps the most notable development in recent years is the shift in Jakarta’s tone—from purely security-driven to one that places equal emphasis on development, dialogue, and dignity. While military operations like the one in Soanggama capture headlines, the long-term vision the government has outlined is one of peace built through engagement and trust-building.

Over the past decade, Indonesia has invested heavily in Papua’s infrastructure—roads, bridges, telecommunications, schools, and hospitals. More recently, the government has focused on inclusive education and healthcare programs, aiming to close the development gap between Papua and the rest of the country. These initiatives are complemented by increased autonomy funds, revised regional governance models, and programs that support indigenous leadership at the village and district levels.

However, development alone is not enough. That is why the central government has repeatedly emphasized a dialogue-based approach to address the root causes of unrest in Papua. President Prabowo Subianto, since the beginning of his administration, has publicly stated that Papua cannot be pacified through military means alone. High-ranking ministers, including those responsible for political and security affairs, have echoed this message, calling for humanist and diplomatic solutions to bridge the gap between the state and Papuan communities.

Institutions such as Komnas HAM (National Human Rights Commission) and community organizations have also played key roles in advocating for peaceful negotiation. In recent years, several informal dialogues have taken place between Papuan leaders and Jakarta officials, laying the groundwork for more formal reconciliation mechanisms. The challenge remains in bringing armed groups to the table—many of whom remain skeptical of the state’s intentions—but the path forward is being cleared, piece by piece.

 

Protecting Civilians and Winning Trust

For all the government’s efforts, one undeniable fact remains: trust in state institutions is still fragile in many parts of Papua. This is a legacy of decades of misunderstanding, conflict, and—at times—repression. Jakarta’s challenge now is not just to secure the region militarily, but to win hearts and minds by showing a genuine commitment to justice, inclusiveness, and human rights.

This is where post-operation conduct becomes crucial. Following successful missions like Soanggama, the Indonesian government must ensure that humanitarian aid, public services, and community dialogue are prioritized. Security forces stationed in new posts must not only act as defenders but also as facilitators—helping connect villagers with the broader apparatus of state support. Education about citizenship, legal rights, and economic opportunity can go a long way in reshaping public perception.

Additionally, reintegration programs for former combatants, conflict-sensitive development planning, and enhanced local representation in governance are all strategies that can strengthen peace. By integrating security with development and dialogue, the government sends a strong signal: that its endgame in Papua is not conquest, but coexistence.

 

A New Chapter or Another Cycle?

As the dust settles over Soanggama, a broader question lingers: does this operation mark the beginning of lasting peace, or is it another chapter in a decades-long cycle of conflict and retaliation?

On one hand, Indonesia’s ability to reclaim territory and dismantle insurgent infrastructure is a powerful demonstration of its sovereignty and capacity. On the other, unless that power is wielded with care, transparency, and accountability, it risks reinforcing the narratives of marginalization that have fueled separatism for generations.

To break the cycle, the government must continue moving toward a balanced strategy—combining the enforcement of law with the pursuit of reconciliation. There must be recognition that peace in Papua is not simply the absence of war, but the presence of justice, dignity, and trust. And while military operations may quell violence temporarily, only genuine dialogue can transform conflict into coexistence.

 

Conclusion

The events in Soanggama are a testament to Indonesia’s resolve in protecting its national integrity and ensuring the safety of its people. But they are also a reminder of the deep complexities embedded in Papua’s conflict—a mix of history, identity, underdevelopment, and mistrust.

As Indonesia continues to implement its dual-track strategy—combining law enforcement with humanistic development and open dialogue—there is an opportunity to turn one of its most protracted conflicts into a model for peaceful resolution. This will not be easy, nor will it be quick. But by staying committed to the principles of justice, human rights, and unity in diversity, the nation has a chance to offer something rare in today’s world: a roadmap to peace through both strength and compassion.

 

Related posts

Double Standards in the Papua Conflict: Unmasking TPNPB-OPM’s Human Rights Narrative

One Year In: How the Prabowo–Gibran Presidency Is Changing Papua’s Trajectory

Indonesia’s Strategic Response to Human Rights Double Standards on Papua: A Complex Battle Beyond the Headlines