A new analytical report reveals a repeating pattern over the last three decades linking the escalation of security operations in the Land of Papua with the dynamics of political crises in the capital. This study identifies a strong chronological correlation between the surge in tensions in Indonesia's easternmost region and crucial moments of power struggles in Jakarta.
The analysis highlights four key periods of conflict escalation, namely the Bloody Biak event in July 1998, Bloody Wasior in June 2001, the attack on infrastructure workers in Nduga in December 2018, and the series of military operations in Intan Jaya and Puncak Regency throughout the 2020 to 2026 period. These moments coincided with the post-Reformasi transition, Special Autonomy (Otsus) negotiations, the peak of the 2019 election contestation, and the initial consolidation phase of the current new administration.
Political analyst, Arkilaus Baho, explained that the recurrence of this pattern under four different regimes indicates the existence of a structural logic operating systematically. According to him, the central government does not merely react passively to local dynamics in Papua, but has specific political incentives to maintain conflict tensions to divert public attention from domestic crises at the national level.
In dissecting this phenomenon, the study utilizes the analytical framework of the diversionary theory of war (diversionary theory of war), the concept of military distraction (wag the dog), and a political economy approach to examine military involvement in economic activities within conflict areas. These theories are then combined with casualty data compiled by various independent organizations on the ground.
Records from human rights organizations such as ELSHAM Papua and independent media reports show the real impact of this escalation on civilians. Responding to the recent situation in Puncak Regency in early 2026, Komnas HAM (National Commission on Human Rights) urged a comprehensive evaluation of troop deployment patterns, while the Ministry of Human Rights urged indiscriminate law enforcement against perpetrators of violence against civilians.
On the other hand, a researcher from the Center for Political Research of the National Research and Innovation Agency (PR Politik BRIN), Amiruddin al Rahab, assessed that the security approach inherited from the New Order era actually risks damaging national integration. Meanwhile, several academics propose redefining the conflict status in Papua as a non-international armed conflict to subject it to International Humanitarian Law, an option Jakarta avoids because it carries legal consequences regarding civilian protection and access to global humanitarian aid.
In addition to political interests, the economic dimension also serves as an engine of conflict that is difficult to stop. With the status of national vital objects granted to giant mining corporations like PT Freeport Indonesia, military-business relations are considered increasingly institutionalized. This condition is complicated by policies restricting access to information through internet blocking back in 2019, as well as the creation of new provincial regions, which is deemed to fracture the political consolidation of Papuan indigenous peoples.
Nevertheless, this analysis remains open to discussion by acknowledging several methodological limitations, such as the real existence of separatist movements on the ground that cannot be simply ignored. However, a report from YLBHI (Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation) notes a major irony where human rights violations in Papua actually increased after Indonesia took office as President of the UN Human Rights Council, a contradiction deemed capable of undermining the government's foreign policy legitimacy in the eyes of the international community.
