Internal Conflict Resolution between Government of Indonesia and Separatist Movement in Papua using Horse-Trading Mechanism

Abstract

The study aims to analyze the process of internal conflict resolution between the Government of Indonesia and the separatist movement in Papua (Free Papua Movement (Indonesian: Organisasi Papua Merdeka or OPM)) using a horse-trading mechanism. This study was qualitative method by discussing the Free Papua Movement background and the conflict, then discussing the conflict process of timeline analysis tool to understand the development of its movement based on chronological order, and discussing the conflict resolutions that have been carried out with conflict mapping analysis tool to understand the actors that involved and their objectives. The conflict is the result of complexity among historical backgrounds, ideology, and a sense of injustice in Papua, on the other hand, the international community has increasingly supported Papua. Horse-trading has been used to resolve the conflict of Free Papua Movement and the Government of Indonesia, yet it has not yet reached a new resolution. The horse-trading mechanism effectively resolves the conflict when trust has been achieved between them to communicate both of them where they can deliver their objectives openly.

Papua Conflict: An Article Review from the Best Conflict Resolution Method

“…The use of horse trading method in conflict resolution Armed Criminal Group (KKB) in Papua have several strengths and weakness. This model has positive impacts towards Indonesian Government to give the best policy in responding to issues which happen so it can ease the conflict resolution peacefully (Febrianti et al, 2019). Which is without involving armed actions and violations towards local civilians.…”

“…Secondly, there will be doubt from KKB side whether in the mentioned dialogue, KKB is able to really declare what they want and Indonesian National Military will accept it, or this dialogue is supported by central government. And then thirdly, there is a big tendency from KKB side that they want no dialogue, because they have been considered as the state's enemy, and can be ambushed or caught by Indonesian Government at any time with separatism accusation (Febrianti et al, 2019).…”

“…Lowering the level of the actor mentioned earlier is decreasing in the term of quantity and military "attribute". Because government in general involves different government ranks and its nature is very state-centric (Febrianti et al, 2019).…”

“…Indonesian Government sent a negotiator who can discuss with the hostage taker and make use of the help of non-state actor's help who has a close relationship with The Southern Philippines society. In this case, Indonesian Government relied on the party who potentially can be more accepted by hostage takers with considering communication and information which were needed to be able to negotiate with hostage takers (Febrianti et al, 2019). That was can be done by Indonesian Government in joining a dialogue with conflict of armed criminal group (KKB) in Papua by lowering group's or individual's actor who represents the government but on the other hand is also an expert in negotiation and has adequate information to be able to declare Indonesian's demands and to listen to demands proposed by KKB in Papua.…”

Konflik Dan Solusi Papua Merdeka Dalam Pemikiran Paul Feyerabend

“…Dari penyelesaian konflik yang sudah ditempuh oleh Pemerintah Indonesia ditunjukkan bahwa kepentingan utama Indonesia adalah untuk mempertahankan wilayah Papua sebagai bagian dari Negara Indonesia, mengakhiri serangan yang dilakukan oleh Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM), dan tidak sedikitpun memberikan celah OPM untuk melakukan referendum. Pihak Pemerintah Indonesia merupakan pihak yang memiliki kuasa lebih tinggi daripada OPM, disisi lain atas dasar budaya dan juga sejarah mereka tidak mengakui wilayah Papua sebagai bagian dari Negara Indonesia, maka dari itu OPM menuntut referendum terhadap Pemerintah Indonesia dan bagaimanapun juga tetap melakukan upaya separatisme (Febrianti, & Arum, 2019;Faturahman, 2017).…”