Jusuf Kalla’s call for a more dialogical approach to the Papua conflict comes at a moment when renewed violence has again placed civilian safety and the future of development in the region under intense scrutiny. The former Indonesian vice president has urged the government not to rely solely on security operations, arguing that political communication, persuasion and a more profound understanding between the state and communities must accompany law enforcement.
Kalla made the remarks in Yogyakarta on Sunday, September 13, 2026, only days after three Jayawijaya Agriculture Agency officials were shot dead in Muliama, Papua Pegunungan, while carrying out a government programme involving agricultural and livestock assistance. The deaths have triggered demands for accountability from civil society and religious organisations, while also reopening a wider debate over how Indonesia can reduce violence without disrupting development and public services.
For Kalla, the lesson is not that security measures should disappear. Rather, he argues that they need to be accompanied by an effort to explain the government’s development agenda and build understanding among communities.
That approach, he suggested, has been used in other parts of Indonesia, most notably Aceh, where Kalla played a prominent role in efforts to end a prolonged conflict.
Three Civil Servants Killed in Jayawijaya
The immediate backdrop to Kalla’s statement was the September 9 shooting in Muliama District, Jayawijaya.
Three employees of the Jayawijaya Agriculture Agency were killed while travelling after carrying out duties connected to agricultural and livestock assistance. They were identified as Aprida Rapi, 49; Alfonsius Albinus Meha, 35; and Willi Mbuik, 24 to 25, according to different reports.
The group had been involved in activities intended to support local communities, including livestock assistance, agricultural programmes and checks related to rice-field development. Their deaths therefore carried significance beyond the immediate security incident. They also illustrated the risks faced by public servants attempting to deliver government programmes in areas where armed violence remains a concern.
Indonesian authorities have pursued the investigation through the Damai Cartenz operation. Reports cited by Inilah.com said police had identified two people placed on a wanted list who were allegedly connected to the shooting. The investigation remains the basis for determining individual responsibility.
The incident also drew a strong response from the Indonesian Christian Students Movement, or GMKI.
GMKI Chairman Prima Surbakti condemned the shooting and firmly called for the pursuit of the perpetrators. He specifically highlighted Willi Mbuik, described as a GMKI cadre and an economic pillar of her family.
At the same time, GMKI did not frame security enforcement as the only answer. Prima also called for a peaceful solution through a stronger social and cultural approach, including dialogue aimed at preventing further civilian casualties.
That combination of firm law enforcement and dialogue closely resembles the broader balance proposed by Kalla.
Jusuf Kalla’s Message: Security and Dialogue
Speaking after attending the inauguration of the new leadership of the Indonesian Red Cross in Yogyakarta, Kalla said the Papua situation required an appropriate security operation but also a direct effort to communicate with communities.
He argued that people should understand that development in Papua is intended to be built collectively, involving both the government and society.
Kalla also pointed to the substantial amount of government funding allocated to Papua’s development. In his view, this investment needs to be communicated effectively to communities so that the purpose and benefits of government policies are understood.
He compared Papua’s development position with neighbouring Papua New Guinea and argued that the scale of Indonesian government spending has created significant developmental progress. The comparison, however, was presented by Kalla as part of the need to build political understanding rather than as a substitute for addressing local concerns.
The former vice president was equally clear that dialogue does not mean abandoning security.
Kalla said that if armed groups continued to threaten security and public order, operations involving the Indonesian Military and National Police would still be necessary. His central argument was that security operations should be accompanied by persuasive and peaceful engagement.
In other words, his proposal is not an either-or choice between security and dialogue. It is a combination of the two, with communication and political engagement intended to reduce the conditions that allow violence to continue.
Why Kalla Invoked the Aceh Experience
The reference to Aceh is particularly important because Kalla has long been associated with Indonesia’s efforts to resolve the conflict there.
In his latest remarks, he pointed to Aceh as an example of how dialogue and peaceful engagement could be used to address a prolonged security problem.
“That can be implemented anywhere, like in Aceh,” Kalla said, according to Tutur.co.id’s account of his remarks.
The comparison does not mean Papua and Aceh are identical. Their histories, geography, political dynamics and social structures are different. Yet Kalla’s argument is that the experience demonstrates the potential value of political communication when conventional security measures alone cannot provide a lasting solution.
For Papua, the practical implication is significant. Dialogue would need to operate alongside the government’s existing development and security responsibilities rather than replace them.
It would also require the state to communicate directly with communities, listen to local concerns and demonstrate that development programmes are producing tangible benefits.
Religious Leaders Call for a Humanitarian Dialogue
Kalla’s remarks were echoed, in a different but complementary form, by the Indonesian Communion of Churches, or PGI.
On September 12, PGI expressed deep concern over a series of violent incidents in Papua. The organisation specifically referred to the reported hostage-taking of nine civilian women in Jila District, Mimika, Papua Tengah, in August 2026, as well as the September 9 shooting that killed three Jayawijaya Agriculture Agency employees.
PGI called on all parties involved in armed conflict to stop hostage-taking, shootings, killings and other acts that place civilians at risk.
The organisation also emphasised protection for women, children, humanitarian workers, public servants and other civilians.
More importantly, PGI urged the immediate opening of a humanitarian dialogue.
According to PGI, such a dialogue should provide space to protect lives, rebuild trust and create a path toward a dignified and peaceful resolution of Papua’s problems. The organisation argued that violence and retaliation only create additional fear, loss and mistrust.
The appeal gives Kalla’s proposal a broader social dimension. Political dialogue is not only a matter for government officials and political actors. Humanitarian organisations, churches, customary leaders, community representatives and other local stakeholders can also play a role in reducing tensions.
Development Cannot Be Separated from Security
One of the most important elements of the current debate is the relationship between security and development.
The three officials killed in Muliama were not conducting a military operation. They were carrying out public duties related to agriculture and livestock. Their deaths, therefore, highlighted how insecurity can affect programmes designed to improve people’s livelihoods.
An agricultural extension worker, veterinarian or civil servant cannot easily reach remote communities if travelling through certain areas carries a high risk of attack.
This creates a difficult cycle. Insecurity can interrupt public services, while interruptions in services can make it harder for communities to experience the benefits of development.
Political analyst Ujang Komarudin, quoted by Inilah.com, argued that welfare and justice should be among the fundamental elements of the government’s strategy in Papua. He said development policies need to be felt in everyday life rather than remaining administrative programmes on paper.
Ujang also supported a stronger dialogical approach based on consensus and shared commitments to maintaining security and public order.
His argument broadly complements Kalla’s position: security can protect people from immediate threats, but sustainable stability also depends on whether communities experience development, fairness and meaningful communication.
The Government’s Challenge Is to Connect Policy with Communities
The debate also comes at a time when the Indonesian government is continuing development and recovery efforts in Papua.
Inilah.com reported that the government had been accelerating post-conflict social recovery in Jayawijaya and Lanny Jaya, including rehabilitation and reconstruction discussions at the ministerial level.
At the same time, the Papua issue has received attention from the Regional Representative Council’s Papua Special Committee, which planned visits to Maybrat in Southwest Papua and Timika in Papua Tengah to examine security, humanitarian issues, alleged human rights violations and the effects of strategic projects.
These developments suggest that Papua’s challenges cannot be addressed through one institution or one policy instrument.
Security agencies have responsibility for protecting citizens and responding to armed attacks. Local governments must maintain public services. The central government has responsibility for national policy and development funding. Meanwhile, religious leaders, customary communities, youth organisations and civil society groups can help maintain communication at the community level.
Kalla’s recommendation for dialogue therefore points toward a broader governance challenge: making sure these different approaches work together.
A Delicate Balance Between Firmness and Persuasion
There is also an important distinction between dialogue and concessions.
Kalla did not call for the government to abandon law enforcement. He explicitly said that security operations involving the TNI and Polri could remain necessary if violence continued.
His argument was that operations should be accompanied by persuasion and political communication.
That distinction matters because the government faces two simultaneous responsibilities. It must protect civilians and public servants from armed violence while also maintaining space for peaceful communication with communities.
GMKI made a similar dual appeal. It demanded firm action against those responsible for the killing of civilians while also encouraging social and cultural approaches and dialogue to prevent further violence.
This combination could become particularly important in remote areas where government presence is closely associated with development programmes.
If public servants cannot safely reach communities, roads, agricultural projects, schools and health programmes may also face disruption. Conversely, if communities feel disconnected from government policy, the effectiveness of development spending can be weakened.
What a Papua Dialogue Could Mean
The word “dialogue” can mean different things in different contexts. Kalla’s remarks point primarily toward political and persuasive communication with communities and armed actors, while PGI uses the term “humanitarian dialogue” to emphasise the protection of civilians and the creation of trust.
These approaches do not necessarily have to compete.
A practical peace strategy could require several levels of communication. Community leaders can address local tensions. Religious organisations can facilitate humanitarian engagement. Local governments can explain development programmes and listen to concerns. National institutions can maintain broader political communication while security forces protect civilians and enforce the law.
Such a structure would also allow development programmes to become part of the peace-building process rather than simply being economic or administrative projects.
For Papua, the situation is especially relevant in agriculture, education, health, infrastructure and rural economic development. These are areas where government programs directly meet communities.
The challenge is to make that encounter safe, credible and useful for both sides.
Papua’s Next Test Is Building Trust
The recent debate does not offer an immediate formula for ending violence. Nor does the Aceh experience provide a simple template that can be transferred wholesale to Papua.
What it does offer is a reminder that prolonged security problems can require political communication alongside security measures.
Kalla’s experience lends his recommendation particular weight. His argument is that the government should continue protecting citizens but should also explain development, engage communities and pursue peaceful understanding wherever possible.
PGI’s appeal adds a humanitarian dimension, stressing that civilians must not become casualties of the conflict. GMKI’s response similarly combines demands for firm action with a call for social, cultural and political approaches. Meanwhile, analysts have argued that welfare, justice and implementation of development policies must remain central to any long-term strategy.
For Indonesia, the challenge ahead is therefore not simply to choose between force and dialogue.
It is to create a framework in which security protects people, development improves daily life, institutions respond to legitimate concerns, and dialogue builds enough trust to reduce the incentive for violence.
Conclusion
Jusuf Kalla’s latest intervention has placed the question of peace in Papua back at the centre of Indonesia’s national conversation.
His message is clear: while security operations may still be necessary, they should not be the sole focus. Political dialogue, persuasion and direct engagement with communities should accompany the government’s efforts to maintain public order and continue development.
The deaths of three Jayawijaya civil servants show the human cost when insecurity reaches ordinary public services. The calls from PGI and GMKI demonstrate that demands for peace are emerging from different parts of Indonesian society, while the analysis of political observers underlines the importance of welfare, justice and practical development.
The experience of Aceh cannot simply be copied in Papua. But Kalla’s broader lesson remains relevant: lasting peace requires more than controlling violence. It requires building understanding.
For Papua, that may ultimately be the more difficult and the more important task. If security, development and dialogue can reinforce one another, Indonesia will have a stronger foundation for protecting civilians, sustaining public services and creating conditions in which Papua’s communities can pursue a more peaceful and prosperous future.
Read Also
Barisan Merah Putih Calls for Peace and Stability in Papua
Indonesia Forms Papua Special Committee to Advance Peace and Development
Gus Dur’s Papua Legacy Still Shapes the NU Peace Efforts