Neles Tebay, Abepura, Papua – Papua Province has been the only Indonesian province still rebellious against the Jakarta-based central government.

However, all elements of civilian society in Papua, including the police, led by the leaders of all religions (Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism), have committed to work together for peace under the motto: "Papua, the Land of Peace".

The interfaith campaign for peace is based on and guided by an awareness and respect for diversity, justice, solidarity, harmony, and the general welfare.

These are the shared underlying values of the concept of "Papua, the Land of Peace". They are also criteria for evaluating development policy. Thus all development activities should be aimed at establishing Papua as the Land of Peace.

To comment on prospective developments in Papau for peace in 2008, I would like to use a study done by Papuan religious leaders at the interfaith workshop, "Papua, the Land of Peace", taking place during the first week of December, 2007, in Jayapura.

They mapped potential conflicts in 2008 and proposed recommendations for conflict-prevention policy in the western half of the island of New Guinea.

The religious leaders recognized a lack of good will – whether in Jakarta or Papua – with regard to the consistent implementation of the 2001 Papua special autonomy law.

The absence of good will, on the part of the central government, has been manifested, for example, through the issuance of two presidential instructions, namely on the creation of the new province of West Irian Jaya in January 2003 and the acceleration of development in Papua and West Irian Jaya Provinces in May 2007.

By issuing these instructions, the government was deliberately violating the autonomy law. Instead of pushing the government to be consistent in implementing the autonomy law, the House of Representatives never raised any objection to the instructions.

This means that both the government and the House have no willingness to implement the autonomy law in Papua.

The Papuan provincial government and legislative council (DPRP) have not demonstrated their ability to implement the autonomy law. These state bodies have not issued the necessary special implementing regulations (perdasus) and the provincial regulations (perdasi), and without these, the autonomy law can't be implemented properly.

As a result, as recognized by the religious leaders, the level of the people's welfare has not improved. The quality level of education and health care services in Papua remains very low. Some 82 percent of all households in Papua's rural areas still live below the poverty line. The spread of HIV-AIDS continues to threaten the very existence of the indigenous Papuans.

The potential for horizontal conflict among civilians – who are united to a greater or lesser degree by differences of religion, sect, tribe, and village – lies in Papuans' realization that the autonomy law has been another government's empty promise and the possibility that the meaning of Indonesian rule will questioned. It also lies in establishment of new provinces and regencies with support from the central government and House.

The government's policy of establishing new military stations and deploying ever-more combat troops throughout Papua, in the eyes of the religious leaders, has also been a source of restlessness among civilians in Papua.

The newly deployed troops know nothing about local cultures, and tend to misunderstand the local population and apply a militaristic approach in dealing with the indigenous people.

The troops use "separatism" as an excuse to silence Papuans who criticize arrogance and actions that make people restless in their own land.

The massive exploitation of natural resources by legal and illegal logging and fishing companies will continue in 2008. There are also allegations of military involvement in these businesses, and also in bootleg alcohol.

The destruction of millions of hectares of Papuan rain forest for oil palm plantations will be another source of conflict in Papua.

The ideological differentiation between the government and the Papuans continues to be a hindrance for peace and development in 2008.

The difference has been used to justify the use by security forces of violent tactics against civilians and wrongfully stigmatize them as Free Papua Movement (OPM) members.

Despite repeated denial by the military, religious leaders suspect that the OPM issue is deliberately stirred up by the labeling carried out by the security forces.

There are even allegations that separatist groups receive assistance from security forces to create chaos and provoke conflict among civilians. This ideological difference, if not settled properly, could trigger vertical conflict in 2008.

All the above-mentioned potential conflicts should be settled peacefully through a joint conflict-prevention process involving the government and the Papuans.

Learning from the vertical and horizontal conflicts caused by the issuance of the 2003 and 2007 instructions, the central government should stop issuing instructions that conflict with the autonomy law.

Instead, the government should put in place the legal framework this law mandates.

A comprehensive evaluation enjoying backing from both the government and native Papuans on the implementation of the autonomy law is considered an urgent need that must be addressed in 2008 so Papuans can exercise their role as agents of development in Papua.

Instead of creating new provinces or regencies in Papua, the government should prioritize the implementation of the autonomy law.

As part of conflict-prevention policies, religious leaders have called for the government to reduce the number of military stations and troops, of which there are many throughout Papua.

The Papuan provincial government and the DPRP are encouraged by a special implementing regulation (perdasus) on the deployment of non-organic troops, more particularly the Army's Special troops (Kopassus), and the effectiveness of the role of the police in civilian life.

In order to address the ideological differences, the religious leaders call upon the government and the indigenous Papuans to engage in a peaceful dialogue, facilitated by a neutral third party.

The perpetrators of illegal logging, corruption and human rights should be brought to the court of justice to prevent further conflict.

Despite suitable proposals for a conflict-prevention policy, the prospect of peace and development in Papua, in my opinion, depends very much on the government's response to two questions.

Firstly, is the government willing to engage in a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of the Papuan autonomy law that involves indigenous Papuans in the process?

Secondly, is the Indonesian government willing to engage in a genuine dialogue with the representatives of those Papuans who are considered separatists?

The proposed evaluation and dialogue will determine the progress of Papua's development and peace in 2008.

[The writer is a lecturer at the Fajar Timur School of Philosophy and Theology in Abepura, Papua.]