Key Takeaways:
- The essay says Pacific Island states raised Papua human-rights access and a UN rights-chief audit at the General Assembly while still affirming Indonesian sovereignty, which it treats as internationally intact.
- It separates that legal status from effective rule: attacks on teachers and officials justify a security response, but roads and ports have not closed gaps in education, health, jobs, or fair shares of resource revenue.
- The prescribed mix is special-autonomy quality, anti-corruption, inclusion of Papuan identity, and treating transparency with Pacific states as a diplomatic asset rather than a concession.
The issue of Papua has gained international attention once again, as several countries from the Pacific Islands drew attention to human rights violations in Papua during the General Assembly of the United Nations. The countries that spoke up regarding human rights in Papua stressed the need for greater international access to the region, but in the same breath underlined Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua. To date, international recognition of Papua’s status as part of the Republic of Indonesia has not wavered. The recent declarations by several leaders of Pacific countries stressing the need for greater transparency in Papua and an audit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights are significant. They differ, however, from efforts to question Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua, which to date remains non-existent.
Most importantly, our analysis highlights the distinction between Indonesia’s legal legitimacy over Papua and its effective governance over the region. As sovereignty over Papua is widely recognized internationally, problems of human rights and social and economic inequality exist, which must be addressed by Indonesia. These problems cannot be solved through the application of extra military force but rather through the development of effective and legitimate governance that is capable of managing the diverse social, cultural, economic, and political interests that exist in Papua today.
First and foremost, a large portion of the political discussion about Papua is restricted to the views of security and sovereignty. Whilst armed separatist movements, as well as external critics of Indonesia, want to split up Indonesia, all sovereign states have the right to defend their territorial integrity against non-state armed groups. Additionally, the attacks on teachers, doctors, and officials certainly demand a serious reaction from the government. However, the same security measures and also the discussions about sovereignty are not sufficient to solve the underlying problems of Papua’s politically unstable situation.
Moreover, addressing the political and social root causes of conflict cannot be solved by mere security measures. The stability of politics is determined by the extent to which people trust the government’s institutions. Military and police presence might be able to enforce laws and bring the perpetrators to justice, but in the long run, they are not enough to obtain an integrated sense of belonging to the nation among all citizens. Efforts to develop and consolidate Papua must yield results within a period of time to change the people’s perception of Papua’s development, in order to ease the external pressures exerted on the country.
Another challenge confronting the country is that of an economic and human development gap. A lot of investment has been channelled to Papua for the development of physical infrastructure such as roads, bridges, ports, and airports to break its isolation. Yet, to measure development, there are more important parameters such as human resources development, including education, health, employment opportunities, and institutional capacity. The challenge for Indonesia is to convert its investments into development that can create benefits for local Papuans.
The core task of the Indonesian government is to transform economic growth in Papua into tangible improvements for the local community. Experiences from other resource-rich regions all over the world have shown that massive flows of investment and revenues do not automatically lead to expected results, unless they are distributed fairly and justly among the local population. The very complex geography, cultural diversity, and historical experiences of the Papuan people need to be taken into account by prudent and well-intended strategies and policies. A sense of discontent and doomsday feelings of marginalization and neglect among the indigenous communities will prevail unless these economic benefits are distributed fairly and justly and the basic needs of the community are fulfilled.
A third key area that Indonesia needs to develop further to achieve sustainable stability in Papua is governance or politics, in the form of increased inclusion of the Papuan population in the governance of Papua within Indonesia’s democracy. While Papua has special autonomy, which was granted in the form of an amendment to the Indonesian Constitution, autonomy is a continuous process that requires improving the quality of governance in all fields, including transparency and anti-corruption, as well as improving the capacity of institutions at all levels.
However, outside of Papua, Indonesia also has to grapple with new challenges of diplomacy. The image and way in which a country communicates about itself today is becoming increasingly important. Papua has dominated several international meetings at the UN General Assembly. Although there is recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty, abroad Indonesia’s human rights record and transparency of its government are not seen as satisfactory. The country has to differentiate itself from other countries, positively communicate its policies, and expose its successes.
The international recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua is intact. The foreign criticism that persists, however, contains considerable reputational risk that can feed easily into images currently bracketed by transnational advocacy networks. How Indonesia perceives its own development and interacts with other countries increasingly becomes the criterion for its status as a ‘confident’ and ‘successful’ democracy, which recognizes that strength is not about negating others’ perspectives but addressing them with confidence and due process.
A sophisticated and integrated approach is required that engages security, human development, governance and diplomacy. First, Indonesia must invest in human development by building the country’s greatest asset through improved education, health, and job opportunities. Infrastructure development alone will not lead to sustainable stability in Papua. Secondly, administrative reforms need to increase local governance capacity, fiscal accountability, and the quality of public services delivered to the people of Papua.
Thirdly, deepen political inclusion. Engage all stakeholders, including community leaders and members of society, in dialogue and recognize and respect Papuan identity and diversity. Fourthly, transform defensive resistance of Indonesia’s sovereignty into constructive dialogue with Pacific nations and other international parties and demonstrate that transparency is part of its strength and legitimacy.
Operational transparency, which has often been portrayed as a vulnerability, should therefore be leveraged as a strategic asset to counter misinformation, earn Indonesia’s good name, and deliver real progress on the ground.
Recognizing Papua as an integral part of Indonesia is the most important thing. Now Indonesia needs to work harder to create peace and prosperity for all Papuans. The country’s strength will be measured not by how Indonesia can maintain control over Papua, but by how Indonesia can allow Papuans to enjoy equal opportunities.
The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own.
References
- Purnama, Y., & Rakhmat, M. Z. (2026, May 14). China’s chance in Papua to bolster Indonesia’s green credentials. Lowy Institute.
- Nobetau, O., Graham, C., Thompson, S., & Sasingian, S. (2026). Pacific Islands Forum 2026: What Lowy’s Pacific team will be watching. Lowy Institute.
