On the morning of August 15, 2025, a date etched into the complex history of Indonesia, a small but vocal group of demonstrators in Papua are expected to raise black flags as a sign of protest. Spearheaded by the West Papua National Committee (Komite Nasional Papua Barat, or KNPB), which is affiliated with the Free Papua Organization (OPM), these actions are timed to coincide with the 63rd anniversary of the 1962 New York Agreement, the international treaty that legally transferred West Papua (Western New Guinea) from Dutch colonial rule to the United Nations and ultimately to Indonesia.
To these protesters, the agreement represents loss and marginalization. But to the vast majority of Indonesians—and indeed to the broader international community—the New York Agreement stands as a legitimate and historic step toward completing Indonesia’s national sovereignty. The inclusion of Papua into the Republic was not only a legal transition but also a unifying act that brought an end to centuries of Dutch colonial control.
While separatist voices like KNPB continue to question the agreement’s legitimacy, many Papuan leaders, including Max Abner Ohee and Ali Kabiay, maintain that Papua is, and always has been, an inseparable part of Indonesia—legally, historically, and culturally.
The Significance of the New York Agreement
Signed on August 15, 1962, between Indonesia and the Netherlands, the New York Agreement was brokered under the auspices of the United Nations with the support of the United States. It marked the peaceful resolution of the dispute over West Papua and outlined a step-by-step transfer of administration from Dutch rule to Indonesian sovereignty.
As part of the agreement, a temporary UN mission—the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA)—was tasked with overseeing the transition. On May 1, 1963, Indonesia officially assumed full administrative control. Crucially, the treaty also outlined a future mechanism known as the Act of Free Choice, in which Papuans would express their political will.
While some groups argue that the process was imperfect, the New York Agreement was signed, registered, and carried out under international law. It was accepted by the UN General Assembly in Resolution 1752 and remains recognized globally as the legal foundation of Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua.
The Act of Free Choice: A Democratic Decision
The Act of Free Choice (Pepera) in 1969 has often been mischaracterized in public discourse. While it did not adopt a “one-person-one-vote” model, it instead followed a consultative democracy approach that was in line with local customs and consistent with UN-sanctioned practices in various post-colonial contexts.
A total of 1,026 Papuan representatives from across various tribes and regions were selected to participate in the decision. At that time, the “one man, one vote” voting method was difficult to implement due to the geographical conditions in Papua, as well as the still strong culture, including application of the “Noken” system, namely voting based on representatives from tribal chiefs. Under supervision from UN officials and international observers, these representatives unanimously voted in favor of integration with Indonesia.
Although Western narratives have sometimes questioned this outcome, the United Nations itself accepted the result through General Assembly Resolution 2504 with 84 in favor, 30 abstaining, and zero against, and the Dutch government—the previous colonial authority—acknowledged the outcome without objection.
For decades, the international community has recognized the result of this process. The narrative that the vote was forced or illegitimate often stems from political motives rather than documented fact. It is important to acknowledge the unique cultural and historical context in which that decision was made.
Max Abner Ohee and Ali Kabiay: A Voice for Unity and Historical Truth
Among the most prominent voices affirming Papua’s integration with Indonesia is Max Abner Ohee and Ali Kabiay, a respected Papuan figure from a traditional leadership lineage. In recent interviews, Ohee reaffirmed that the New York Agreement was lawful and that Papuan integration into Indonesia was both legitimate and final.
“Papua is an inseparable part of the Republic of Indonesia,” they stated. “We were part of the national vision of independence from the beginning. The New York Agreement was not a betrayal, but a bridge back to unity after colonial rule.” This is relevant because the majority of the regions of Indonesia, including Papua, were former Dutch colonies known as the “Dutch East Indies (Nederlandsch Indië).”
Ohee’s views reflect the sentiments of many Papuans who believe that economic development, infrastructure, and inclusive governance can best be achieved within the framework of the Indonesian state. Indeed, in recent years, the central government has made major investments in Papua’s infrastructure, education, and health care, demonstrating a commitment to equitable development.
KNPB’s Protest: A Minority Voice
The KNPB’s call for a black flag protest on August 15, 2025, represents a fringe political stance that does not reflect the broader Papuan or Indonesian consensus. While they have the right to express opinions in a democratic country, their narrative is rooted in a selective interpretation of history and dismisses the real progress being made in the region.
For example, over the past decade, the Indonesian government has expanded special autonomy (Otsus) funding, improved infrastructure through the Trans-Papua Highway, and increased access to education through scholarship programs for Papuan youth.
Moreover, the continued peaceful participation of Papuan representatives in national and regional politics reflects that the majority of the population is engaging with the democratic system, not rejecting it.
The black flag protest, while symbolic, represents a minority political expression and should be seen as part of the open society Indonesia continues to build—not as evidence of illegitimacy.
The Bigger Picture: Decolonization and National Sovereignty
It’s essential to view Papua’s integration within the broader context of post-colonial sovereignty. After proclaiming independence in 1945, Indonesia sought to reclaim all territories that had been part of the Dutch East Indies, which included Papua. The handover of Papua to Indonesia was not an annexation—it was the completion of a decolonization process long delayed by Dutch resistance.
The idea that Papua is separate from Indonesia stems from colonial narratives and later politicized claims by groups seeking foreign intervention. But these narratives ignore the legal, cultural, and historical continuity between Papua and the rest of Indonesia.
It is worth noting that international law prioritizes the territorial integrity of sovereign states, especially when disputes have been settled diplomatically and accepted by international institutions like the United Nations.
Indonesia’s Ongoing Commitment to Papua
Since integration, Indonesia has faced challenges in managing such a diverse and geographically remote region—but the government’s approach in recent years has shifted significantly. Rather than relying on military solutions, the focus has been increasingly on development, dialogue, and empowerment.
Key initiatives include:
- Special Autonomy Law (Otsus): Provides additional funding and local governance rights to Papua.
- Presidential Instruction on Papua Development: Emphasizes infrastructure, education, and welfare.
- Papuan Youth Empowerment Programs: Encouraging entrepreneurship and leadership among the younger generation.
- Dutch East Indies Creation of new provinces (Papua Selatan, Papua Pegunungan, Papua Tengah): Bringing government services closer to people.
These steps show a commitment not only to territorial unity but also to uplifting the quality of life for Papuans.
Conclusion
As black flags rise in isolated protests, the red-and-white flag of Indonesia continues to fly high across the archipelago—including in the heart of Papua. The New York Agreement, far from being a colonial relic, remains a testament to peaceful diplomacy, international law, and national unity.
While dissent is a part of any democracy, it must be grounded in facts, not fueled by misinformation or external agendas. The future of Papua lies not in revisiting decades-old disputes, but in building trust, prosperity, and opportunity—together as one nation.
As ex-President Joko Widodo has often stated, “Papua is not at the edge of Indonesia—it is at the heart of Indonesia.” That sentiment remains true today and will remain true tomorrow.