Violence, Information War, and the Vulnerability of Papuan Civilians

Violence in Papua tends to be followed by the complexity of various information flows aimed at clarifying the chronology of events as well as denying it. This information is usually issued by conflicting parties, in this case security forces and the West Papua National Liberation Army (TPNPB). This information is then amplified by "other parties" that are difficult to identify and further worsen the situation.

Also read: Violence in Papua is Increasing, OPM Labeling Needs to Be Clarified

In conflict situations, there is a new form of weaponry, namely information. The flow of information in this conflict is also not without purpose. The conflicting parties use information as a weapon to discredit and seek support for their actions as part of an influence operation to influence public perception and control the dominant narrative.

As a result, the validity of such information is often questioned due to the potential disinformation that can worsen conflicts and deepen polarization in society. Besides the aforementioned acts of violence, there are other complexities. The public questions the effectiveness of security strategies in Papua and the inhibiting factors.

This article will review these two complexities.

Information as a weapon

It is difficult for the public to judge which version is correct.

Another controversial information concerns the "status" of Kogoya, Murib, and one of their associates who are accused of being members of TPNPB. Sebby Sambom, TPNPB spokesperson, and several human rights activists deny it.

Security forces often easily accuse Papua natives as separatist movement members. Kogoya, as a "civilian", was eventually released due to lack of evidence and this is an example of wrongful arrest.

Profiling or differentiating TPNPB members from civilians is difficult because their faces tend to be identical.

Long-standing conflicts have negative emotional impacts and feelings of frustration, especially when facing difficult terrain and the constant threat of losing lives.

Another controversial information concerns the role of local communities, which according to TNI, helped identify the three accused members of TPNPB. The question is, is it easy for the community to side with TNI and provide information? The failure to find pilot Susi Air, Philips Merthens, who was held hostage by TPNPB, is also suspected to be due to the local community's "silent attitude" in providing information to security authorities.

If local communities are known to provide information, their lives will be threatened by TPNPB retaliation for being labeled as traitors. Furthermore, at a certain level, the relationship between TPNPB and the community is bound by tribal values and a "shared mission" (independence) that they respect.

In addition, although the military always claims that the relationship between security forces and the local community is good and harmonious, it is difficult to know the actual situation. Civilians are in a dilemma position because they are in the middle of two warring parties with the threat of violence.

Information as a weapon in conflict situations is indeed problematic. Based on a CSIS study (2023), the information that is being spread in Papua tends to be manipulative, spreading false claims about an event, individual, or organization through visual manipulation and news amplification on social media.

Deceptive messages are its hallmark, presenting biased narratives that exploit prejudices and grievances, with the aim of influencing people's perceptions in a certain direction. The information uses language that is full of emotion to elicit strong feelings, such as anger, fear, and sympathy.

Depicting the brutality of the TPNPB or security forces and civilian casualties are examples of how information is used to provoke emotions.

Manipulative information is also driven by an agenda to serve the political, social, and economic interests of certain groups or individuals. This contributes to social polarization and conflict by reinforcing biases against existing realities.

The Papuan community tends to be not easily receptive to information due to "biased reasoning" resulting from prolonged violence trauma, which triggers negative emotions such as fear, hatred, and anger. As a result of traumatic experiences, information accusing parties other than security forces as perpetrators of violence will not be easily believed due to the perception that conflict is full of engineering.

Also read: Understanding the Papua Conflict from the Inside

Obstacle factor

The increasing cases of violence also stem from the "failure" to eradicate the separatist movement. Many factors hinder efforts to eradicate TPNPB.

Geographical and weather aspects are inhibiting factors. There is also the influence of war strategies. The Papuan people view war as "hunting" animals. Every tribe has a different style of war. This is not fully understood by the security apparatus because it has anthropological value.

The use of civilians, especially women and children, as shields by TPNPB is another hindering factor. There is also an aspect of "supernatural strength" that TPNPB uses as a war strategy. Another factor is the failure to break the chain of arms trade which often involves security forces and funding sources that support TPNPB activities.

The increasing number of young TPNPB members also shows the failure of development in Papua. Another thing is changing the "independence" ideology of TPNPB supported by other actors, such as customary law, churches, and NGOs inside and outside the country.

Another inhibiting factor is the psychological factor of soldiers in the conflict zone. Prolonged conflict has a negative emotional impact and causes frustration, especially when facing difficult terrain and the constant threat of death. A psychological approach towards the soldiers is crucially important.

Although the operational rules in war are clear, they are often violated due to a lack of supervision from superiors, weak law enforcement, and other stressors, such as personal problems related to well-being or efforts to avenge the death of a comrade during conflicts with TPNPB.

Learning process

Violence against three indigenous Papuans is a sad situation, but it provides a learning process. General Izak has committed to thoroughly evaluating the security strategy in Papua. This commitment must be respected and continually monitored by the public.

Cases of violence carried out by security forces on any pretext in Papua must be investigated and brought to court so that the perpetrators can be punished. There can be no more impunity. The same rule of law must apply to TPNPB members for the crimes they commit.

As a final note, in order for the information not to be used as a weapon by conflicting parties, independent and credible parties must verify the information as part of public knowledge based on evidence. We all hope that Papua will be more peaceful and far from violence.

Vidhyandika D Perkasa, Chair of the Political and Social Change Department of CSIS