Criminal law expert Indriyanto Seno Adji stated that the repeated acts of violence committed by Papua separatists in Papua can now be viewed from the perspective of terrorism. The patterns and actions of the Papua separatists, which instill terror and disrupt the sense of security in the lives of the people, also violate the principles of human rights protection and challenge the authority of the legitimate state.

“Labeling the actions of Papua separatists as terrorism is appropriate within the framework of criminal law facets combined with constitutional law, especially in light of the recent incidents in Puncak Regency,” said Indriyanto, who also teaches legal studies at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia.

He stated that actions carried out with armed force represent the format and pattern characteristic of terrorism. Indriyanto further asserted that these acts can be considered even more extreme, specifically as armed separatist terrorism movements that must be firmly addressed. Hence, the Indonesian President’s directive for the military and police to take action and arrest all members of the Papua separatists is deemed appropriate.

“Within the doctrine of criminal law combined with constitutional law, the actions of the Papua separatist movement, characterized by terrorism, can be categorized as a ‘clear and present danger’ that undeniably threatens the integrity and sovereignty of the state,” said Indriyanto.

Furthermore, the Papua separatist movement clearly seeks an ideology separate from Indonesia, carried out unconstitutionally. This is evident through their actions, whether violent or non-violent, which are then cloaked in the guise of democratization.

“The national human rights commission should assess objectively and issue a statement that the systematic terrorism pattern of the Papua separatists constitutes a gross violation of human rights, rather than adopting a politically absurd stance. It is clear that the Papua separatist movement is a terrorist movement in the form of armed separatism, which requires firm action by the state,” Indriyanto concluded.