The Papua conflict is entering a troubling phase, Human Rights Minister Natalius Pigai said this week, arguing that violence, once largely framed as an armed confrontation between the West Papua National Liberation Army from the Free Papua Movement (TPNPB OPM), and Indonesian security forces, is increasingly affecting civilians and becoming associated with ethnic and racial identity.
Speaking in Jakarta on September 17, 2026, Pigai said the development should not be treated as another routine episode in Papua’s security conflict. He warned that attacks against people identified as members of migrant communities could deepen divisions between Indigenous Papuans and other Indonesians living and working in the region.
His warning came after a series of deadly incidents in Papua Pegunungan, including the September 9 killing of three Jayawijaya Agriculture Office employees and the September 15 death of a transport driver, Aris Sanda, in the Danau Habema area.
Indonesian authorities have attributed the two incidents to armed groups associated with the OPM. Those attributions remain claims by security authorities, while the broader argument that the conflict is systematically shifting into racial violence is Pigai’s assessment.
That distinction matters in a conflict where information is often difficult to verify independently.
From Armed Resistance to an Identity-Based Conflict
Pigai described the evolution of the Papua conflict as a series of stages.
He recounted that the armed resistance that emerged during the 1960s initially stemmed from opposition to Papua’s political status. After the National Congress of Papuan People in 2000, Pigai described the movement as developing along several tracks, including armed activity associated with the TPN OPM and political diplomacy involving Papuan intellectuals.
The next stage, he said, involved the internationalization of the Papua issue through international organizations, advocacy groups, and parliamentary networks abroad. A further stage involved clandestine activity in urban areas.
Pigai’s concern is that the pattern is now changing again.
“What shocked me is that the resistance in Papua has shifted toward resistance based on racism, ethnicity, and race,” Pigai said during a press conference in Jakarta. He warned that violence rooted in ethnic, racial, tribal, or religious identity could produce consequences far beyond conventional armed confrontation.
The minister specifically referred to attacks involving people from migrant communities. He argued that repeated violence against people because of their identity could eventually turn what has traditionally been described as an armed conflict into a wider social confrontation.
“If this becomes a standard pattern and becomes entrenched, Papua and non-Papua could become like oil and water,” Pigai said, according to reports of his remarks.
His message was therefore not only directed at armed groups. Pigai also called on Indonesian security personnel to ensure that civilians are not drawn into security operations.
September 9: Three Agriculture Officials Killed
The first incident that drew renewed attention occurred in Jayawijaya on September 9.
A group of 11 employees from the Jayawijaya Agriculture Office had travelled from Wamena toward the Muliama area as part of agricultural activities. Reports said the officials had been involved in monitoring farmland and agricultural assistance before returning toward Wamena.
A shooting claimed the lives of three group members.
Reports identified the victims as Alfonsius Albinus Meha, a veterinarian, Aprida Rapi, a livestock official, and Willi Mbuik, an agriculture employee. The group had been carrying out government duties connected with agricultural and livestock assistance.
Initial reports described the attackers as unidentified armed individuals. Indonesian security authorities subsequently associated the attack with an armed group.
The incident was particularly significant because the victims were not members of the security forces. They were civilian government employees working on agricultural programs intended for communities in Jayawijaya.
Reports said the three officials were returning from agricultural activities when the attack occurred. Eight other members of the group survived.
The incident also illustrated a broader challenge facing Papua’s development programs. Agricultural extension workers, health personnel, teachers, transport operators, and other civilian workers frequently operate in areas where access and security remain difficult.
When such workers become victims of violence, the consequences extend beyond the loss of individual lives. Government services may face interruptions, communities may hesitate to accept assistance, and development projects may encounter additional security challenges.
September 15: Aris Sanda Killed at Danau Habema
Six days later, another civilian death intensified concern.
Aris Sanda, also known as Bapak Tasya, was driving a passenger and logistics vehicle along the Wamena to Mbua route in Papua Pegunungan on September 15.
According to the account released by the TNI’s Habema Operations Command, the vehicle was stopped by an armed group at about 6 a.m. near the intersection around Danau Habema, Gunung Boy, Trikora District, Jayawijaya.
Passengers were reportedly ordered to leave the vehicle and return toward Wamena. Sanda remained behind.
The following day, personnel from the Habema operation found the vehicle burned, with Sanda’s body inside. The TNI identified the suspected perpetrators as members of the OPM’s Kodap III Ndugama.
ANTARA separately reported the TNI’s attribution of the attack to the armed group.
Sanda’s background added another dimension to the case. He was reported to be from Toraja and had worked as a driver serving passengers and transporting supplies into remote areas.
His death consequently became part of the discussion about whether some recent violence in Papua is increasingly directed at civilians identified as outsiders or members of migrant communities.
However, the available reports do not by themselves establish a comprehensive pattern showing that every recent attack was motivated by ethnicity. That remains an important distinction when assessing Pigai’s broader warning.
Pigai’s Direct Message to TPNPB OPM
On September 17, Pigai delivered an unusually direct warning to armed groups.
He said TPNPB OPM should not kill or take civilians hostage. If a civilian is suspected of committing an offense, Pigai argued, the person should be arrested alive and processed under the law rather than subjected to extrajudicial violence.
He also mentioned allegations that attackers were identifying some civilians based on their backgrounds before launching attacks. Pigai described the situation as unacceptable and emphasized that civilian life must be protected.
At the same time, he directed a separate message toward Indonesian security forces.
Pigai said civilians should not be involved in security operations and stressed that international humanitarian law prohibits the use of civilians in military operations. ANTARA reported that he specifically referred to the principles of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions.
This dual message is important because Pigai’s argument was not simply that the state must protect one community from another. His stated position was that civilian protection should apply regardless of ethnic or political identity.
Why the Racial Dimension Matters
Papua’s population is socially diverse.
Indigenous Papuan communities live alongside Indonesians who have migrated to Papua over several decades. Migrant communities have become part of the economic and social fabric of many towns, particularly in commercial centers and transportation corridors.
This situation creates a difficult security environment.
An attack directed at an individual can have consequences beyond the immediate victim if the victim is perceived to represent a particular ethnic or regional identity. Fear can spread quickly, especially in areas where access to information is limited and communities depend heavily on personal networks.
Pigai warned that this dynamic could create a form of horizontal conflict, meaning violence between communities rather than only confrontation between armed groups and state security forces.
ANTARA reported that the minister urged preventive measures to prevent such tensions from developing into a wider ethnic conflict. He also emphasized eliminating discrimination and ensuring equal justice for Indigenous Papuans and migrant communities.
That emphasis on equal protection is significant for the Indonesian government’s broader Papua policy.
Security measures alone cannot resolve concerns about discrimination or social trust. At the same time, development programs cannot operate effectively where civilians fear becoming targets of violence.
Development and Security Are Increasingly Connected
The recent incidents demonstrate the inseparable link between Papua’s security situation and development.
The three Jayawijaya agriculture officials were working in an area connected to farming and livestock programs. Sanda was transporting people and goods through a difficult inland route.
Their work represents the everyday infrastructure of civilian life.
A road is useful only if people can travel along it. Agricultural assistance matters only if farmers and government workers can reach communities. Health and education programs depend on teachers, medical workers, and administrators being able to move safely.
For this reason, attacks against civilians can have a multiplier effect.
They can discourage workers from entering remote areas, raise transportation expenses, interrupt public services, and reinforce perceptions that isolated communities are beyond the reach of normal law enforcement.
The Indonesian government therefore faces a dual challenge: protecting civilians from armed violence while ensuring that security operations themselves remain within legal and human rights standards.
Pigai’s public statements reflect this tension.
A More Difficult Test for Law Enforcement
The latest incidents also put pressure on investigators.
Attributing an attack to a particular armed group requires evidence, particularly when the incident occurs in a remote area where independent access can be limited.
For families of victims, however, the immediate priority is accountability.
The state is expected to investigate killings, identify perpetrators, and bring those responsible before the law. At the same time, authorities must prevent retaliatory violence against communities based on ethnicity or perceived political affiliation.
This is where the distinction between an armed group and an ethnic community becomes essential.
An attack allegedly carried out by an armed organization should not automatically be translated into hostility toward an entire population group. Likewise, legitimate criticism of government policy should not be treated as evidence that an individual civilian supports an armed organization.
Maintaining that distinction is central to preventing a security conflict from becoming a broader communal conflict.
What Comes Next for Papua?
Pigai’s warning arrives at a sensitive moment.
The government under President Prabowo Subianto continues to face the challenge of balancing security, human rights protection, and development in Papua. The recent violence demonstrates that physical infrastructure and economic programs must operate alongside effective civilian protection and law enforcement.
The government must ensure that it transparently investigates attacks against civilians and prosecutes the perpetrators through lawful procedures.
Another is preventing ethnic identity from becoming a basis for collective suspicion.
The government’s ability to protect Indigenous Papuans and migrant communities equally will be important for maintaining public confidence. Pigai himself has stressed that protection should be provided to everyone in a particular area rather than being determined by ethnicity.
The security forces also face the difficult responsibility of maintaining operations against armed groups while minimizing risks to civilians.
For Papua’s wider development agenda, the issue is more than a security question. It is directly connected to whether agricultural programs, transportation networks, education services, health facilities, and local economies can continue functioning in remote areas.
Conclusion
Natalius Pigai’s warning about the Papua conflict marks an important shift in the public discussion surrounding violence in the region.
The September killings of three Jayawijaya Agriculture Office employees and transport driver Aris Sanda have placed renewed attention on civilian vulnerability. Indonesian authorities have attributed the incidents to armed groups linked to the OPM, while available reporting does not independently establish that all such violence is systematically motivated by ethnicity.
That distinction should remain central to responsible reporting.
At the same time, Pigai’s warning highlights a genuine risk inherent in prolonged conflict: once individuals are targeted or perceived through ethnic identity, violence can acquire consequences that reach far beyond the original confrontation.
Papua’s future therefore depends not only on security operations. It also depends on equal protection under the law, accountable institutions, continued development, and the ability of Indigenous Papuans and migrant communities to live alongside one another without being treated as opposing camps.
The challenge for Indonesia is to ensure that armed violence does not become communal violence and that the protection of civilians remains the foundation of both security policy and Papua’s long-term development.
Read Also
Amnesty International Condemns Civilian Killings by TPNPB OPM in Papua
Aris Sanda: A Migrant Driver Killed by TPNPB OPM in Papua
Three Jayawijaya Civil Servants Killed by TPNPB OPM in Muliama