1) Indonesia Rejects Allegations of Systematic Human Rights Violations in Papua
Reporter Antara September 29, 2026 | 12:30 pm
TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - Indonesia rejects unilateral allegations of systematic human rights violations in Papua. The country asserts that it takes any credible allegations seriously and addresses them through national institutions and legal mechanisms, including the independent National Commission on Human Rights (Komnas HAM).
According to a press release from the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jakarta on Tuesday, Indonesia conveyed this while exercising its right of reply during the General Debate of the 81st United Nations General Assembly session in New York on Monday, September 28, in response to statements regarding the situation in Papua made by representatives of the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu.
It has been reported that three civil servants were killed after distributing livestock aid to the community, a driver transporting necessities was killed, and nine women and children were abducted in Mimika.
“Attacks on civilians do not constitute a peaceful expression of grievances. Indonesia is obligated to protect all its citizens, while ensuring that every law enforcement measure adheres to national law and international human rights obligations,” Indonesia asserted in its right of reply, as quoted by ANTARA.
Indonesia reiterates that discussions regarding Papua must reflect the situation in its entirety. Civilians, teachers, health workers, and government officials have also fallen victim to violence perpetrated by armed groups.
Indonesia also emphasizes that arrangements for a visit by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights must be agreed upon between the host country and the Office of the High Commissioner—as applies to all member states—and not be dictated by other countries or regional organizations.
Indonesia has stated that it will continue to engage constructively through relevant mechanisms and promote dialogue and cooperation grounded in respect for facts and the safety of all civilians.
According to the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA), during the 81st session of the UN General Assembly, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Cooper Wale called for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua, stating that reports of human rights violations must be independently verified.
"Reports regarding human rights violations in West Papua have persisted for too long. These reports must be independently verified, rather than being allowed to turn into an unending dispute," said Wale. He also urged Indonesia to facilitate the long-awaited visit of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Vanuatu’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Odo Tevi, raised a similar point when he expressed concerns about alleged human rights violations in West Papua.
Tevi said peace and security cannot be separated from human rights, while calling for greater international attention to the situation of indigenous Papuans in West Papua. "The call from Pacific Islands Forum leaders for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit West Papua has yet to be addressed and requires urgent follow-up," he said.
Meanwhile, on September 24, Indonesian Foreign Minister Sugiono and Solomon Islands Foreign Minister Rick Nelson Houenipwela held a bilateral meeting on the sidelines of the 81st UN General Assembly to strengthen cooperation in development, trade, and capacity building.
Sugiono invited business representatives from the Solomon Islands to participate in the Trade Expo Indonesia, scheduled for October 14–18, 2026. He also encouraged finalizing cooperation in education and culture.
The Foreign Minister of the Solomon Islands outlined plans to strengthen the country's representation in Jakarta to boost bilateral economic and trade relations, and expressed appreciation for Indonesia's contributions through various capacity-building programs and scholarships.
2) Pacific states urge Jakarta to allow UN access to West Papua at New York general assembly
Andrew Mathieson Published September 29, 2026 at 10.30am (AWST)
Pacific leaders used their address at the 81st session of United Nations general assembly to urge Indonesia to permit the UN Human Rights High Commissioner unrestricted access to visit West Papua.
The outrage even led an emotional Solomon Islands Prime Minister Matthew Wale to go a step further under the worldwide spotlight of its New York headquarters.
Mr Wale called for the abolishment of veto powers which the five permanent members of the UN — the United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France — hold with their responsibility for international peace and security whereby should one member state object to any UN resolution.
He described this provision as a "relic of 1945" going back to the conclusion of World War II to attract the major powers, whose cooperation was essential to maintain peace and persuade them to participate in the world's newest security system.
"Too often it has been used to shield violations of international law and entrench the double standards that fuel conflict," Mr Wale told the UN general assembly.
The remarks concerned how Indonesia was able to obtain West Papua through the UN following the decolonisation of two neighbouring former colonies of the Netherlands from vastly different cultural ethnicities.
Solomon Islands joined its Melanesian Spearhead Group member states — Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu and Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front in New Caledonia — to ask UN Human Rights High Commissioner Volker Türk, an Austrian lawyer, to supply a human rights report on West Papua before the group's summit in mid-2027.
"Solomon Islands respects the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia, and we value our friendship with its government and people," Mr Wale said.
"It is precisely because of that friendship that we speak with candour.
"Reports of human rights violations in West Papua have persisted for far too long.
"They must be independently verified, not left in dispute."
Marshall Islands President Hilda Heine was another Pacific voice to push for a resolution on the matter.
"The Marshall Islands affirms the region's Pacific Islands Forum communiqué position regarding West Papua, including a 2018 invitation by Indonesia to the UN Human Rights Commissioner," she added.
Indonesia has previously reassured the international community it supports "a cooperative and non-confrontational approach to human rights issues, based on mutual respect (but) national ownership".
The Melanesian Spearhead Group anticipates meeting Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto at the conclusion of the general assembly.
Indonesia's Minister for Foreign Affairs Sugiono gave something of a diplomatic response to the united Pacific bloc.
"As a nation of more than 280 million people, Indonesia's learned that diversity is not something to overcome; it is something to manage, respect and turn into strength to democratic participation, dialogue, and respect for differences," he said.
"We preserve our unity from Aceh to Papua, from Miangus to Roti.
"Indonesia is one people; Indonesia is one nation."
3) Ateta Clan challenges palm oil expansion and alleged encroachment on customary land in Teluk Bintuni
28 September 2026 / 5 minutes of reading
On 13 July 2026, members of the Indigenous Ateta clan from Sumuri District, Teluk Bintuni Regency, West Papua Province, staged a peaceful protest beginning at approximately 07.00 am at the Office of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) in Teluk Bintuni Regency. The protest concerned alleged encroachment on approximately 32,000 hectares of Ateta customary land and disputed Right to Cultivate (Hak Guna Usaha, HGU) certificates associated with oil palm plantation operations. The protesters subsequently filed a police report concerning alleged irregularities in the issuance of land titles and the installation of boundary markers bearing the name of PT BSP on their customary territory. The case raises serious concerns regarding the protection of indigenous land rights, meaningful consultation and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in relation to commercial activities affecting customary territories.
On 11 July 2026, Ateta clan leader Mr Benidiktus Ateta issued a public call inviting students, young people, indigenous land-rights defenders and environmental activists in Teluk Bintuni Regency and across West Papua to participate in a peaceful protest. The appeal alleged that the Teluk Bintuni Regency ATR/BPN Office was facilitating activities benefiting PT BSP on Ateta customary land. The demonstration was scheduled for 13 July 2026 at the Teluk Bintuni Regency ATR/BPN Office, beginning at 07.00 Papua Time.
On 13 July, members of the indigenous community protested at the ATR/BPN Office and the Teluk Bintuni Regency Environment Agency before proceeding to the Teluk Bintuni Regency Police Station, where they submitted a complaint to the Integrated Police Service Centre (SPKT). The community was accompanied by a representative of the West Papua People’s Assembly (MRP). According to Benidiktus Ateta, the complaint concerned alleged “land mafia” activities relating to the disputed certificates and the placement of PT BSP boundary markers on Ateta customary land.
The dispute has its origins in oil palm operations reportedly conducted by PT Varita Maju Tama in Sumuri District for approximately three decades. According to community representative Dion Ateta, PT Varita obtained access to the customary territory in 1997 through approval from the then district authorities without involving the indigenous community. The Manokwari Land Agency subsequently issued HGU documentation. Following PT Varita’s reported bankruptcy or liquidation, some of its assets were allegedly transferred to PT BSP, including land claimed by the Ateta clan as approximately 32,000 hectares of customary territory.
The Ateta community reported subsequently discovering boundary markers bearing the name PT BSP on its customary land. Hendri S. Paru, Head of the Teluk Bintuni Regency Land Agency, confirmed that the markers had been installed by PT BSP rather than by the BPN. He further stated that PT BSP’s acquisition of PT Varita had taken place in Jakarta but that the relevant administrative procedures had not yet been completed and that, administratively, the land documentation remained registered under PT Varita.
Significant disagreement remains regarding the status and ownership of the disputed certificates. Community representatives demanded transparency concerning certificates issued by the BPN to PT BSP. Hendri S. Paru disputed this characterisation, explaining that only three certificates were associated with the company, whilst more than 2,000 others were likely associated with transmigrant farmers under plantation schemes. He stated that PT Varita’s certificates had been issued in 1997 and remained valid until 2032.
The protesters submitted 11 demands, including cancellation of HGU certificates; clarification of the boundaries of the area concerned; protection of indigenous peoples’ rights; transparency regarding the disputed certificates; public consultation before any HGU extension; revocation of the HGU associated with PT BSP; an investigation into the circumstances in which the land titles were issued; and disclosure of the consent on which the issuance of the certificates had allegedly been based. The Ateta clan insisted that any action affecting its customary territory must be preceded by consultation with the indigenous rights-holders.
Human rights analysis
The allegations raise concerns regarding the rights of indigenous peoples to their traditionally owned, occupied and used lands, territories and natural resources. The Ateta clan maintains that it never authorised the alienation of the customary territory concerned and has specifically requested that the authorities disclose whose consent formed the basis for the disputed land titles. Under international human rights standards, indigenous peoples’ relationships with ancestral lands extend beyond formal title and encompass customary ownership, occupation and use. UN human rights standards require particular safeguards where business activities affect indigenous lands and resources, including consultation through indigenous peoples’ own representative institutions and attention to FPIC.
The reported absence of indigenous participation when plantation rights were initially established in 1997, if substantiated, would therefore warrant careful examination. The Ateta clan alleges that PT Varita obtained access to its customary territory through approval by government authorities without involving the indigenous rights-holders. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rightshas emphasised that indigenous peoples’ cultural values and rights associated with ancestral lands are particularly vulnerable to business activities and that States and businesses should respect FPIC in decisions affecting indigenous lands, territories and resources. It further calls for human rights impact assessments and good-faith consultation through indigenous peoples’ own representative institutions.
The case also engages the State duty to protect against business-related human rights abuses and the corresponding corporate responsibility to respect human rights. Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, States should maintain an adequate regulatory framework and provide effective remedies, whilst companies should conduct human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for adverse impacts. This responsibility applies independently of whether domestic authorities have fulfilled their own obligations. Accordingly, any proposed transfer, extension, surveying or exploitation of plantation rights affecting Ateta customary territory should be preceded by transparent clarification of land tenure, meaningful engagement with affected rights-holders and appropriate assessment of potential human rights, social, cultural and environmental impacts.
4) Moi Indigenous community rejects state claims over customary land in Sorong Regency
28 September 2026 / 4 minutes of reading
On 9 July 2026, reports emerged that members of the Moi indigenous community, together with the Malamoi Indigenous Peoples’ Organisation (LMA Malamoi), had rejected state claims and planned government programmes affecting customary territories in Sorong Regency, Papua Barat Daya Province. The concerns relate to land formerly covered by corporate concessions whose licences had been revoked and which has subsequently been placed under state supervision through the Forest Area Enforcement Task Force (Satgas PKH). Moi customary rights holders fear that the measure could facilitate the reallocation of their ancestral territories for government programmes or investment projects without their participation or consent.
Dispute over former corporate concessions
The dispute concerns, in part, the legal and administrative status of areas formerly covered by corporate concessions. Moi representatives recalled that in 2021 the Sorong Regency Government and other actors had supported efforts to revoke company licences and return the affected territories to customary rights holders. Following the revocation of the licences, however, the disputed areas were placed under government supervision and control through Satgas PKH rather than being returned to the indigenous communities.
According to information displayed on the notice boards, the relevant corporate licences were revoked pursuant to Decision of the Minister of Environment and Forestry No. SK.01/MENLHK/SETJEN/KUM.1/1/2022. The areas were subsequently placed under state supervision through Satgas PKH pursuant to Presidential Regulation No. 5 of 2025 on the Regulation of Forest Areas. The government reportedly regards these measures as part of efforts to reorganise forest management and rectify problematic permits. At the time of the source report, Suara Papua was still seeking responses from Satgas PKH and the Sorong Regency Government regarding the Moi community’s demands.
Customary assembly and community demands
The position was adopted during a customary assembly and oath-taking ceremony held between 30 June and 1 July 2026 in Saluk Village, Wemak District, Sorong Regency (see photo on top: source: Suara Papua). Customary rights holders, clan chiefs and traditional Moi leaders from the Klabra and Salkma customary territories discussed the potential impact of National Strategic Programmes (PSN), rice-field development, carbon trading, forest concessions and oil-palm plantations, as well as the installation of Satgas PKH notice boards on land previously covered by revoked company concessions.
Participants stated that the notice boards had appeared without prior notification, consultation or public engagement with the customary landowners. The boards reportedly prohibit entry and utilisation of the areas without official permission, including harvesting crops, taking control of land and conducting land transactions. The Moi representatives demanded the removal of the signs, an end to unilateral state claims over their customary territories and the return of former concession areas to the indigenous customary rights holders.
The community stressed that customary land constitutes not merely an economic resource but the foundation of Moi identity, history, livelihoods and ancestral heritage. Representatives expressed concern that the state could reallocate former concession areas to government programmes or investors without participation of the indigenous communities concerned. LMA Malamoi accordingly called upon both the Sorong Regency Government and the central government to recognise and protect Moi customary tenure. The local government should refrain from opening indigenous territories to investment without community consent.
LMA Malamoi also submitted Letter No. 035/LMA-MM/EX/VI-2026 to the President of Indonesia, rejecting National Strategic Programmes planned for Sorong Regency from 2026 onwards, including rice-field development, forest concessions, oil-palm plantations and carbon-trading schemes. According to the letter, the Moi customary law community is recognised under Sorong Regency Local Regulation (Perda) No. 10 of 2017 on the Recognition and Protection of the Moi Customary Law Community. The community cited risks to its cultural and living spaces, biodiversity, water sources and forests, as well as concerns regarding deforestation and climate change.
Human rights analysis
The dispute raises significant concerns regarding the protection of indigenous peoples’ customary land and resource rights. Where state measures affect territories traditionally owned, occupied or used by indigenous peoples, international human rights standards require effective participation and meaningful consultation with the communities concerned. Measures determining the legal status, control or future use of customary territories without such participation may interfere with indigenous peoples’ rights to culture, property, livelihood and self-determination.
Particularly relevant is the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) enshrined in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Articles 19 and 32 require states to consult and cooperate in good faith with indigenous peoples through their representative institutions before adopting measures or approving projects affecting their lands, territories and resources. Article 26 further recognises indigenous peoples’ rights to lands, territories and resources traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired, whilst Article 28 provides for redress where such lands have been taken or damaged without their FPIC.
The allegations also engage Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), particularly where access to ancestral territory and natural resources is integral to the cultural life of an indigenous community. Restrictions on access to customary forests, agricultural areas, water sources or other resources may have consequences extending beyond property interests where those territories constitute the material basis for maintaining indigenous culture, livelihoods and community life.
Period of incident: 01/07/2026 – 01/07/2026 Perpetrator: Republic Indonesia > Government > Public Official Issues: business, human rights and FPIC Sources: Suara Papua Related Cases:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.