The Papua peace dialogue held in Jayapura on September 17 brought together religious leaders, academics, government representatives, customary figures and civil society groups around a message that was simple but increasingly urgent: lasting peace cannot be built without trust between communities.
The forum, titled Assessing the Role and Response of Religious Communities to Humanitarian Dynamics in Papua, was held at Hotel Horison Kotaraja in Jayapura. It was organised by the central leadership of the Majelis Muslim Papua, or MMP, together with the Alliance for Democracy in Papua, known as ALDP.
The Papua Regional Office of Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious Affairs took part in the meeting, with Buddhist Community Guidance Officer Sarono representing the head of the provincial office. The ministry used the forum to underline its view that religious harmony is one of the foundations for maintaining peace and social cohesion in Papua.
Sarono emphasised that even well-designed programmes must ultimately prioritise humanitarian interests.
“Any programme, no matter how good, must be based on humanitarian interests,” he said, adding that strengthening religious harmony remains a priority for the Ministry of Religious Affairs.
His remarks placed the discussion beyond theology or relations between different faiths. In Papua’s context, participants argued, religious communities can also help create spaces where people with different political, social and cultural backgrounds continue talking to one another.
That may be particularly important when conflict and humanitarian concerns have created distrust.
September 17: Different Voices Meet in Jayapura
The dialogue was deliberately broad.
According to the Ministry of Religious Affairs representative, it involved religious leaders, government, civil society institutions, academics, customary leaders and other elements of society.
The meeting’s central argument was that no single institution can address Papua’s problems.
Security agencies have responsibilities. Government institutions have responsibilities. Religious leaders, universities, customary communities and civil society also have roles.
For Sarono, dialogue provides a way to bring those perspectives together.
He said differences in background and opinion are a natural part of a diverse society and should be managed through communication and mutual respect. He argued that strengthening religious harmony allows communities to cooperate more effectively in maintaining security, reinforcing solidarity, and addressing humanitarian issues.
But the organisers also wanted the meeting to go beyond polite discussions.
One message emerging from the forum was that Papua does not need dialogue simply as an intellectual exercise. Participants called for ideas discussed inside the meeting room to eventually produce practical cooperation.
That distinction became one of the most important themes of the gathering.
Religious Harmony as Social Infrastructure
Indonesia’s Ministry of Religious Affairs generally uses the term religious harmony to describe peaceful relations among people of different faiths.
In the Jayapura discussion, however, the concept was treated more broadly.
Sarono argued that harmony is not limited to relationships among religious communities. It can also provide a foundation for communication and cooperation when society faces wider problems.
This matters in Papua because religion occupies an influential place in community life.
Churches, mosques and other religious institutions are not simply places of worship. Religious figures often have close relationships with families and communities and can communicate across social boundaries that formal institutions sometimes struggle to reach.
That does not mean religious leaders can resolve Papua’s complex political, security or humanitarian issues on their own.
The forum did not make such a claim.
Instead, the discussion positioned religious communities as part of a wider network of actors capable of preserving communication when tensions rise.
In that sense, religious harmony can function almost like social infrastructure. Roads connect physical places. Dialogue and trust connect people.
Both matter when communities are trying to live together through periods of uncertainty.
Four Principles Behind Religious Moderation
Sarono also connected the dialogue to the Ministry of Religious Affairs’ wider approach to religious moderation.
He identified four indicators: national commitment, tolerance, rejection of violence, and acceptance of local traditions and culture.
Those principles are especially relevant in a culturally diverse region such as Papua.
Tolerance allows communities with different beliefs to share public space. Rejection of violence establishes a basic moral boundary for resolving disputes. Respect for local traditions acknowledges that religious life does not exist separately from Papuan cultural identities.
The fourth element, national commitment, places the programme within the Indonesian government’s broader framework for strengthening social cohesion.
Taken together, these principles explain why Kemenag views religious harmony as more than ceremonial interfaith activity.
The objective is to create habits of communication capable of surviving disagreement.
Majelis Muslim Papua: Stop Violence, Protect Diversity
La Mochtar Unu, Deputy Secretary General for Social, Arts and Cultural Affairs at the central MMP, approached the issue through Papua’s diversity.
He argued that differences in ethnicity, religion, culture and social background are unavoidable realities and should be treated as social strengths rather than threats.
His message was particularly direct when addressing violence.
“We must have the same understanding that violence must stop and peace must be placed above everything,” he said.
That statement provided an important foundation for the discussion.
Papua’s diversity means that humanitarian problems can have consequences extending beyond the individuals directly affected. Violence can create suspicion. Suspicion can deepen social distance. Social distance, if left unmanaged, can make constructive communication increasingly difficult.
The forum’s response was not to erase differences.
It was to argue that differences must be managed without allowing them to become a justification for violence or polarisation.
Bernarda Meteray: Understanding History Matters
University of Cenderawasih academic and historian Bernarda Meteray brought another perspective to the meeting.
She asked participants to examine Papua through the interconnected lenses of history, conflict, democracy and dialogue.
According to Meteray, understanding Papua’s history remains important if society is to see contemporary problems more completely. She argued that meaningful spaces for dialogue must accompany the approaches already used in Papua.
Her definition of dialogue was also important.
Dialogue, she argued, should not simply mean holding meetings or making visits. It should create genuine space for communication, listening to different parties and searching together for possible solutions.
“Peace cannot be maintained through violence,” Meteray said. “Peace can only be achieved through understanding.”
The argument introduces a longer-term dimension to the discussion.
Security measures may respond to immediate threats. Infrastructure programmes may improve physical connectivity. Economic policies may expand opportunities.
But none of those automatically creates mutual understanding.
For Meteray, dialogue has a different purpose. It allows communities and institutions to hear perspectives that might otherwise remain separated from one another.
Putting Human Beings at the Centre of Development
The religious perspective was further developed by a representative of the Catholic Church in Jayapura, who argued that Papua’s development should ultimately be measured through its impact on people.
His message challenged an overly narrow definition of progress.
Roads, bridges, buildings, investment and economic growth matter, but they are not the only measures of successful development. The discussion should also consider whether Papuans feel safe, whether human dignity is respected, whether cultural identities are recognised and whether people believe they have a future.
The principle was summarised in a powerful formulation: Papuans should not be viewed as obstacles to development but as its purpose.
That idea is compatible with the broader government objective of making infrastructure and economic programmes directly beneficial to communities.
It also places a responsibility on policymakers.
Development cannot be judged only by how much infrastructure is built or how much investment enters a region. Its social consequences also matter.
For Papua, that means connecting physical development with education, healthcare, community participation, cultural recognition and security.
Humanitarian Issues Enter the Conversation
Humanitarian concerns were central to the September dialogue.
Participants discussed how religious communities should respond when people experience conflict, displacement, insecurity or other forms of suffering.
The emphasis on humanitarian issues was not presented as belonging exclusively to one political position.
Instead, the forum approached human dignity as a common starting point.
Sarono said humanitarian interests should underpin government programmes. Religious representatives emphasised the moral responsibility to respond to suffering. Academics argued for communication and more profound understanding.
These positions converge around a practical principle: civilians should not become expendable in political or security disputes.
For religious communities, this creates a particular responsibility.
They can provide moral messages against violence, maintain contact with communities and help preserve relationships during periods of tension.
But the forum also recognised that statements alone are insufficient.
The challenge is turning moral commitments into action.
From Dialogue to Concrete Cooperation
Sarono’s closing emphasis was therefore on what happens after the participants leave the room.
He said efforts to strengthen harmony should not stop at dialogue forums but should be translated into cooperation and concrete measures that provide benefits to communities.
That may be the most difficult part of any peace initiative.
Holding a dialogue is relatively straightforward. Maintaining communication after disagreements reappear is harder.
The forum did not announce a comprehensive settlement for Papua’s conflicts, nor did the sources report a formal roadmap emerging from the meeting.
Its significance was more modest but still relevant.
It brought institutions and individuals with different backgrounds into the same space and established several areas of broad agreement: violence should be rejected, humanitarian concerns should remain central, diversity should be respected and communication should continue.
Those principles cannot substitute for policy.
However, they can shape the environment in which policy discussions occur.
Government, Security Institutions and Civil Society
The breadth of participation also illustrated the need for shared responsibility.
Government institutions can create programmes and policies, but they cannot manufacture social trust through regulation alone.
Security institutions can protect communities and enforce the law, but lasting harmony requires participation beyond police and military structures.
Religious leaders can influence their congregations, while academics can provide historical and social analysis. Customary leaders understand local relationships, and civil society groups can bring humanitarian concerns into public discussion.
The Papua Regional Police also participated in the forum and emphasised that maintaining peace was a shared responsibility involving government, security authorities, religious and community leaders, academics, students and young people.
This approach is significant because it shifts the focus from the notion that a single instrument can secure peace in Papua.
Different problems require different institutions.
Why Interfaith Relations Matter in Papua
Papua’s religious and cultural diversity makes interfaith relations especially important.
Communities of different faiths live alongside one another, while customary traditions continue to shape local identity.
Religious differences do not automatically produce conflict. The Ministry of Religious Affairs argues that interfaith interaction can become a source of social resilience.
The challenge arises when political disagreement, social inequality or violence creates wider polarisation.
At such moments, trusted community institutions can help prevent tension in one area from spreading into another.
This is why Sarono’s emphasis on communication matters.
Differences do not have to disappear for peace to exist.
People need mechanisms that allow disagreement without turning opponents into enemies.
Peace and Development Cannot Be Separated
The dialogue also arrives as Indonesia expands its development programmes across Papua.
Roads and bridges are being built, connectivity is improving in some areas, education programmes are expanding and local governments are trying to develop agriculture, tourism and the creative economy.
These programmes depend on stability.
A school cannot function effectively when families feel unsafe. Agricultural programmes depend on officials and farmers being able to travel. Roads generate economic benefits only when people can use them without fear.
Peace, therefore, has an economic dimension.
At the same time, development can support peace when communities experience tangible improvements in opportunity and public services.
The relationship is reciprocal.
This dynamic is why a discussion about religious harmony ultimately connects with issues far beyond religion.
The Limits and Value of Dialogue
It is important not to overstate what happened in Jayapura.
One meeting cannot resolve Papua’s long-running disputes.
The September 17 forum did not produce a political settlement, and the available reports do not indicate that representatives of every party to Papua’s armed conflict participated.
Calling the gathering a complete peace process would therefore go beyond what the evidence supports.
Its value lies elsewhere.
The forum created a space where religious figures, academics, government representatives and civil society actors could discuss humanitarian concerns without treating difference itself as a threat.
That is a smaller objective, but a meaningful one.
Peace processes often depend on maintaining channels of communication long before major political agreements become possible.
Conclusion
The Papua peace dialogue in Jayapura offered no instant solution to the region’s complex challenges. Nor did its participants claim that religious harmony alone could resolve political disputes, armed violence or humanitarian problems.
Instead, the September 17 gathering offered something more practical: a commitment to keep people talking.
The Ministry of Religious Affairs emphasised that humanitarian interests should form the foundation of public programmes and that religious harmony can strengthen cooperation among communities. Majelis Muslim Papua urged an end to violence and advocated for treating diversity as a strength. Academics emphasised history, understanding and meaningful dialogue, while religious representatives called for human dignity to remain at the centre of development.
Together, those messages point toward a broader understanding of peace.
Peace is not simply the absence of gunfire.
It also requires people to feel safe enough to communicate, communities to respect differences, institutions to protect human dignity and development to improve everyday life.
The Indonesian government’s support for religious moderation and interfaith harmony provides one institutional pathway toward that objective. But the participants in Jayapura were equally clear that forums must eventually be followed by practical cooperation.
That will be the test after the meeting.
If religious leaders, government agencies, customary communities, academics and civil society can maintain communication beyond formal events, Papua will have a stronger social foundation for addressing disagreement without violence.
The path will not be simple, and dialogue should not be presented as a substitute for law enforcement, humanitarian protection or effective development policy.
It can, however, help create the conditions in which those policies work.
For Papua, where differences in culture, faith, history and political outlook are part of a complex social landscape, preserving that space for communication may be one of the most important steps toward ensuring that disagreement does not become permanent division.
Read Also
666 Years of Islam in Papua: Fakfak Celebrates Tolerance
Papua Barat Demonstrates National Unity Through Pesparawi XIV
“Satu Tungku Tiga Batu”: A Living Philosophy of Tolerance in Fakfak, Papua Barat