I

n his remarkable Harvard speech on Sept. 29 President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY) vowed *to make the 21st century the century of soft power.*

He explains, *The more we exchange cultures and share ideas, the more we learn from one another, the more we cooperate and spread goodwill, the more we project soft power and place it right at the heart of international relations, the closer we are to world peace.* This inspiring statement reflects the growing confidence of Indonesia*s emerging democracy.

Yet how does SBY*s soft power deal with Papua? Does this approach include an attempt to address Papua*s problems?

Under the eyes of the G20 world leaders, SBY convincingly took Aceh as an example of the ways in which soft power has proved its ability and capacity to solve conflict.

The President identified five key elements that constituted the successful story:

First, a rigid military solution did not work.

Second, goodwill and trust building worked.

Third, a win-win formula was a realistic option.

Fourth, dignified and peaceful methods were applied.

Fifth, political interests remained protected: sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Various Indonesian observers argue Indonesia*s democracy has just passed the critical test of elections with good marks. Both legislative and presidential elections were considered free, fair and peaceful.

The second direct presidential election, in July this year, signifies the greater sophistication of the Indonesian populace to determine its own choice, despite enticing political parties* propaganda and the poor administration of the election commission.

Another sign is the establishment of a United Cabinet to minimize the machinations of the political parties, which will, hopefully, serve the public interest better.

What we need for Papua is the same kind of SBY he showed toward Aceh. The world democracies are waiting for decisive engagement in ongoing dialogues (not only a dialogue) with Papuans, based on his previous convincing experience in Aceh and his world vision of peace. Why dialogues? Papua is different from Aceh in nature: geographically, historically, anthropologically and politically. Papua needs a pluralistic and ongoing approach in addressing conflicts involving three key state powers: the legislative, the judiciary and the executive.

Soft power needs to be embraced not only by the executive but also by the legislature and the judiciary.

We should not forget how powerful the legislature was, to impeach the former president Abdurrahman Wahid when he allowed Papuans to raise the Morning Star flag and organize the historical gathering of the Second Papuan Congress in 2000.

The newly elected legislature needs to provide more responsive reforms that adequately meet the needs of Papuan constituents, including the defunct Special Autonomy Law (SAL).

The judiciary needs to engage in dialogues with Papuans on upholding the rule of law. Bear in mind how many cases exist in which Papuans have been charged with treason when they exercise their freedom of expression? Delivering justice and establishing truth become instrumental in building goodwill and trust.

Papuans have a long history of memoria passionis, a collective memory of suffering. These people well remember how Sukarno declared Trikora; Soeharto launched a military operation zone (DOM/ Daerah Operasi Militer); and Habibie sent the Team 100 team home; Gus Dur renamed Papua, allowed the Morning Star flag and the Papuan Congress; and Megawati split Papua into three different provinces and thus, contradicted the SAL.

The question now is whether SBY*s soft power (along with DPR and the judiciary) will bring a somewhat more effective peace based on justice.