Main problems in Papua

Written by Lambang Triyono,
Peace in Papua still faces many obstacles, although there is also opportunity and hope. Papua is still vulnerable to the conflicts (prone to conflict), particularly separatist conflict, as well as local conflicts due to other unsolved problems of injustice and inequality of development, and political resistance associated with central policies that are counterproductive to the implementation of the Papua Special Autonomy . Still vulnerable conflict preventing peace in Papua, especially related to the following issues.

First, inequality, inequality and injustice of development in Papua. Included here is the disparity among regions and communities, between communities cities and the countryside, or the new settlers and indigenous people, in access to development. The potential conflict will be even greater if the gap is even more sharply is not resolved by the development, particularly policies Autonomy available. Especially not improved, or has not resolved the various socio-economic problems in rural areas, residents in the villages and districts that are still isolated by development, Otsus policies, or policies other centers, will make them accessible, which later became closer, to organizations independent Papua (OPM) which promises a better life for them.

Second, the implementation of Autonomy, with a mandate specifically to promote the indigenous Papuans and supported by the majority of Papuans, was still very weak and not satisfactory, yet supported institutional strengthening, MRP, adequate, and not able to improve the quality of life for the majority of Papuans, particularly in rural areas , the villages and districts. The majority of Papuans support Otsus, or Pro-Autonomy, be disappointed, if the central policy counterproductive or weaken Otsus, remain in effect, further increasing the bargaining power movement OPM continues to haunt them.

Third, OPM issues untouched, even by Autonomy though. They so far have not received Autonomy, and continued to launch an armed movement, although sporadic, disorganized, such as in Aceh, no representation or special support of the distribution of political seeds of Papua independence movement in the international and national levels. Peace without touching or involving the groups in conflict, especially the hard-liners in the conflict, such as OPM and its supporters, can not be realized. Peace in Aceh prove it, worked because the GAM signed in it, even though the original was so hard to do.

Fourth, because there is still sporadic, the OPM is not organized, and also because of the complexity of the conflict dynamics, associated with the many factions in the conflict due to the development gaps, lack of Autonomy, and counterproductive policy toward Otsus centers, such as conflicts of migrants and natives, the group Pro-Autonomy, could complicate the formation of groups representing the interests of Papua in a negotiation, dialogue or peace. Peace can only be done if there is representation adequate. In the case of Papua, Papua formation of groups representing very difficult, due to a mosaic of actors have conflict, and the complex linkages between the factions of the conflict there.

Fifth, related to the peace efforts still lack, or absence of systematic efforts and steps, on purpose, and direction done for peace of Papua. The central government itself has not committed to open dialogue, while in the area is also not developed an initiative seeking negotiations, dialogue and peace. Diplomatic efforts and opened negotiations or dialogue, especially with the OPM, has so far not done. Meanwhile, Autonomy policy that allows for open dialogue is not directed there, so that Papua ahead is still very vulnerable to the conflict.