Forests in West Papua are threatened by development projects that the government of Indonesia claims will boost the economy, despite the danger this poses to local indigenous groups. csi
Guest commentary by Cypri Jehan Paju Dale, Ph.D.
The Indonesian delegation at the United Nations continues to deny the alarming human rights situation in West Papua. Most recently, during the 58th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Indonesian diplomats renounced concerns raised by NGOs, including Christian Solidarity International (CSI).
CSI highlighted in an oral statement that “in West Papua, indigenous peoples face renewed threats to their land rights.” The statement warned that this situation has worsened since President Prabowo Subianto announced a revival of the government’s transmigration program to resettle non-indigenous populations in West Papua. Additionally, the president has authorized the establishment of two million hectares of new rice and sugar plantations, enforced through military mobilization.
In response, the Indonesian delegation rejected these concerns, asserting, “We reject the allegation that the Indonesian people in the six provinces of Papua are subjected to structural racial, political, economic, social, and cultural discrimination and other coercive measures.”
This diplomacy of denial is not new, nor is it an isolated stance. It is part of a broader strategy that includes restrictions on access to West Papua for media and academics, intimidation of local journalists, internet blackouts, and suppression of critical civil society organizations. These tactics are designed to silence Papuans’ pleas for justice that are carried through the United Nations human rights mechanisms.
Moreover, this persistent diplomacy of denial has enabled ongoing impunity for state and corporate actors involved in hazardous practices of dispossession and exploitation, a decades-long pattern that caused human rights violations and has cost countless indigenous lives.
Orchestrated Misinformation
Every time the human rights situation in Papua is raised at the UN Human Rights Council by states or civil society, Indonesia counters it with a familiar set of justifications. These were clearly reflected in the recent UN response.
1. Budgetary Claims and Misleading Figures
The first justification is the claim of significant financial transfers from the central government to local Papuan governments, particularly via special autonomy funds.
Indonesia stated: “In the 2025 fiscal year, around USD 4 billion has been allocated from the national budget to support the six provinces on the island of Papua.” This includes a special autonomy fund, with each province receiving approximately USD 0.6 billion.
However, when compared with the rest of Indonesia, this allocation is far from generous. The total direct transfer for all 38 provinces is USD 60 billion, averaging USD 1.58 billion per province. Papuan provinces thus receive only about one-third of the national average. While Indonesia claim that “since 2001, the people of Papua have benefitted from a special autonomy fund as mandated by our special autonomy law,” this fund is significantly insufficient and do not necessarily benefited indigenous population.
Four of the six Papuan provinces were only established in 2022, meaning much of the budget is spent on setting up new government offices rather than on public services. Education and healthcare in the region remain severely underfunded, and increased migration adds further pressure on local infrastructure and government spendings, with little focus on the needs of the indigenous population.
This is one of the reasons why many Papuans opposed the territorial redivision (establishment of new provinces). Instead, they have advocated for prioritizing budget allocations for basic services benefiting indigenous communities.
Special Autonomy framework—tied to Law No. 21/2001—has often functioned more as a symbolic gesture than a substantive policy.
While the law ostensibly recognizes Papuan cultural values and provides for local governance structures, it has never been seriously implemented. Indigenous representation has remained largely powerless, with their concerns frequently ignored. The 2021 revision of the law (Law No. 2/2021) further weakened protections for indigenous peoples. Promised affirmative policies and cultural rights have not materialized, while land dispossession, deforestation, and exploitative concessions continue unchecked.
2. Development Projects that Harm
The second justification Indonesia offers is its array of development projects, purportedly designed to “reduce poverty, enhance human resources, and support low- and middle-income communities.”
While it is true that Indonesia has accelerated development in Papua, many of these projects have resulted in serious human rights violations and environmental degradation. The National Strategic Project—cited by CSI—is a glaring example. It involves massive land dispossession and deforestation in southern Papua under the guise of agricultural development. This, along with mining, transmigration, and military operations, has triggered major social and ecological concerns.
For instance, the Yei people of Merauke in South Papua, with a population of 40,000, inhabit a 695,781-hectare forest area. Almost half of this—316,462 hectares—has been taken without their consent for the government’s food estate project. Like the Marind and Awyu peoples, the Yei have mobilized resistance with the help of civil society groups to stop these destructive developments.
Even the National Commission on Human Rights, a semi-independent state institution, has warned that these projects violate a wide range of human rights. In a recent statement, it noted that the National Strategic Project has “had various serious impacts on the implementation of human rights, including civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as collective rights and the rights of vulnerable groups.”
Despite Indonesian diplomats’ claims of inclusive dialogue, in practice, development projects are enforced through military presence and coercion rather than through genuine consultation with local communities.
3. Security Justifications for Military Deployment
The third recurring argument is security: the claim that military deployments are necessary to protect citizens and infrastructure from armed criminal groups.
Indonesia stated, “Security policies are still necessary due to the terror coming from armed criminal groups indiscriminately attacking citizens and destroying basic infrastructure.”
However, this justification does not hold across all of Papua. In Merauke, for example, there is no active armed resistance, yet thousands of military personnel have been deployed to pressure communities into surrendering land for agricultural development. In the highlands—where armed resistance does exist—communities are fighting to protect their land from the contested mining concessions granted by the central government. Even these acts of resistance are rooted in defense of indigenous rights and territories.
Papuan communities have used both peaceful and armed resistance. Civil society groups across Indonesia have also worked tirelessly to support their efforts. If these projects are not stopped, they risk becoming one of the most devastating human-induced environmental disasters of this century—threatening not just indigenous peoples and their cultures, but also the region’s biodiversity and ecological future.
The Crime of Deceitful Diplomacy
For years, West Papuan communities, Indonesian civil society, and solidarity groups around the world have tried to hold the Indonesian state accountable for the ongoing crisis in West Papua. They have used every available international mechanism, including forums at the United Nations, to raise awareness and demand justice.
Despite these efforts and the mounting criticism, the Indonesian government continues to turn a blind eye. Instead of responding constructively, it has escalated military involvement to push forward controversial development projects. The government’s continuing indifference—especially in international forums—is deeply concerning. It reflects not only a disregard for human rights but also a sustained pattern of dispossession and repression on the ground.
What’s needed is a shift from denial to recognition. Indonesian authorities in Jakarta must acknowledge what is really happening in Papua. Recognition, not repression, is the path to dignified resolution. The current approach—of ignoring and denying—undermines the purpose of the United Nations itself and insults the very principles of diplomacy. This strategy delivers nothing but damage to the dignity of the Indonesian state, while West Papuans continue to pay the ultimate price—with their lives.
Diplomats have a responsibility to defend the dignity of their nation. But this cannot be done through lies or concealment. As representatives of a country before the world, diplomats should be guiding their government toward transparency and accountability, working—despite challenges—to protect and improve the rights of all citizens.
This persistent abdication is troubling in many ways. First, it perpetuates human rights violations. Second, it harms Indonesia’s international reputation. And third, it benefits no one but a narrow elite—corporate oligarchs and military generals—while contributing to their impunity.
This deceitful diplomacy dishonors the spirit of international cooperation and, unchecked, weakens the credibility of human rights mechanisms at the United Nations. It is not only a crime against the people of Papua—it is a betrayal of the very purpose of diplomacy itself.
Indonesia can no longer conceal the truth about West Papua. The Papuan people’s cries for justice—amplified by the internet and growing solidarity networks, including within Indonesia itself— have reached the far corners of the world. Even several UN Special Rapporteurs have taken notice, despite Indonesia’s reluctance to welcome their visits to West Papua. The truth can no longer be silenced.
If Indonesia is genuinely committed to improving the welfare of Papuans, it must begin by recognizing the reality on the ground. That means listening to criticism and implementing genuine, lasting change.
Cypri Jehan Paju Dale is an Indonesian anthropologist whose work focuses on indigenous people and politics of development in West Papua.
