The Release of Susi Air Pilot by the OPM in Papua:What Does Hostage Diplomacy Reveal?

Hostage diplomacy refers to the strategic use of hostage-taking by state or non-state actors to achieve political or diplomatic objectives.

Background

The release of Susi Air pilot Philip Mark Mehrtens, who was held hostage for 19 months by the armed wing of the Free Papua Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka; OPM) led by Egianus Kogoya (Tempo, 2024), marks a significant development in the long-standing and complex conflict between separatist groups in Papua and the Indonesian state. While the successful negotiation is celebrated as a triumph of humanitarian and familial approaches, it also raises critical questions about the effectiveness of these strategies, the role of non-state actors in conflict resolution, and the deeper socio-political dynamics that underpin the ongoing insurgency in Papua. This article critically examines the incident, utilizing contemporary theoretical frameworks and recent empirical studies to provide a nuanced understanding of the implications of this event within the broader context of conflict resolution and state sovereignty.

Conceptual Analysis: Hostage Diplomacy

Hostage diplomacy refers to the strategic use of hostage-taking by state or non-state actors to achieve political or diplomatic objectives. It is a form of coercive bargaining where the hostage becomes a tool to exert pressure on a government or international community to concede to specific demands (Lapan & Sandler, 1988). This tactic exploits the vulnerabilities of democratic states, where public opinion and political accountability can be leveraged to force policy changes or negotiations (Murray, 2020).

The theoretical underpinnings of hostage diplomacy can be traced to Bargaining Theory, which suggests that actors use hostages as a means of signaling their resolve and the seriousness of their demands. The hostage, in this case, functions as a high-stakes bargaining chip that raises the cost of non-compliance for the opposing party (Fearon, 1995). This tactic is particularly effective in asymmetric conflicts, where the weaker party lacks conventional means to challenge a stronger state and therefore resorts to unconventional methods to gain political leverage (Zartman, 2001).

In the case of the Susi Air pilot, Philip Mehrtens, the Free Papua Movement (OPM) employed hostage diplomacy to draw attention to their longstanding demands for Papuan independence from Indonesia. The initial demand for the recognition of Papuan sovereignty in exchange for Mehrtens’ release was a clear manifestation of this strategy. By holding an international citizen, particularly one from a Western country like New Zealand, the OPM aimed to internationalize the Papuan conflict and pressure both the Indonesian government and the global community to engage with their political agenda (Wangi, 2021).

Furthermore, the OPM’s use of hostage diplomacy can be seen through the lens of Constructivist Theories of international relations, which emphasize the role of norms, identity, and discourse in shaping political behavior (Finnemore & Sikkink, 1998). By framing the hostage situation within the discourse of human rights and self-determination, the OPM sought to align their struggle with broader global norms that are more likely to resonate with international audiences. This rhetorical strategy attempts to transform their image from that of a militant group to one of legitimate political actors fighting for a recognized cause (Timmer, 2021).

From Indonesia’s perspective, the handling of the Mehrtens case involved a delicate balance between state sovereignty and international diplomacy. The Indonesian government’s reluctance to engage directly with the OPM’s demands reflects a strategic choice to avoid legitimizing the group and setting a precedent that could encourage similar tactics in the future. This approach is consistent with the deterrence model of conflict management, which posits that states must demonstrate a firm stance against coercive threats to maintain credibility and discourage further challenges (Schelling, 1966).

The use of hostage diplomacy in the Philip Mehrtens case reflects the tactical pragmatism of the OPM in their struggle for Papuan independence. By leveraging a high-profile hostage, they sought to internationalize their cause and exert pressure on the Indonesian state. However, the ultimate resolution of the crisis, facilitated by local mediators and framed within a humanitarian discourse, underscores the limitations of hostage diplomacy as a means of achieving political objectives in a complex and highly contested conflict environment. As such, the case offers valuable insights into the dynamics of coercive bargaining, the role of non-state actors in conflict resolution, and the influence of international norms on the behavior of armed groups in asymmetric conflicts.

Analysis of the Negotiation Process: From Coercion to Humanitarianism

The negotiation process leading to Mehrtens release demonstrates a shift from coercive tactics to a more humanitarian approach, influenced by both practical and symbolic considerations. Initially, the OPM’s position was uncompromising, using Mehrtens as a bargaining chip to force the Indonesian government into a politically untenable position. This aligns with the classical theory of hostages as a form of “political capital” (Lapan & Sandler, 1988), where the value of the hostage is measured not in economic terms but in the political leverage it provides.

However, as the standoff continued, both the OPM and the Indonesian authorities faced increasing pressure. For the OPM, the prolonged captivity of Mehrtens risked alienating potential international supporters and portrayed them as violators of international norms. This shift is reflective of what Galtung (1996) describes as the “contradiction-violence” cycle, where protracted violence exacerbates the contradictions and underlying issues of the conflict, making it more difficult to achieve a resolution. The decision to release Mehrtens, therefore, can be seen as a strategic de-escalation, aimed at reframing the group’s image from that of a violent insurgency to a more rational actor capable of humane gestures.

On the Indonesian side, the government’s engagement in indirect negotiations through mediators allowed it to avoid the appearance of capitulating to separatist demands while still working towards a peaceful resolution. This approach is consistent with the concept of “mutually hurting stalemates” articulated by Zartman (2001), where both parties recognize that the continuation of the status quo is detrimental and seek an exit strategy that allows them to save face. By framing the release of Mehrtens as a humanitarian gesture, both sides were able to claim a form of moral victory without fundamentally altering the political landscape.

The Role of Humanitarian Norms and International Pressure

The invocation of humanitarian norms by the OPM during the negotiation process is a notable development in the rhetoric of the conflict. By aligning their actions with international standards of human rights and humanitarianism, the OPM sought to reframe their struggle in terms that resonate with global audiences. This tactic is consistent with the “norm life cycle” model proposed by Finnemore and Sikkink (1998), which suggests that non-state actors can gain legitimacy by aligning their actions with widely accepted international norms.

However, the use of humanitarian rhetoric also carries risks. As Sriram and Ross (2017) argue, the instrumentalization of human rights discourse can lead to a dilution of these norms, as actors on all sides of a conflict invoke them selectively to justify their actions. In the case of Papua, the OPM’s appeal to humanitarianism may be seen as a pragmatic move to gain international sympathy rather than a genuine shift in strategy. This raises questions about the sincerity and sustainability of such gestures, particularly in a context where violence and coercion have been the primary tools of political expression.

The Role of Non-State Mediators and Local Dynamics

One of the most significant aspects of the Mehrtens case is the role played by non-state mediators in facilitating his release. In regions like Papua, where state authority is contested and trust in government institutions is low, local leaders and organizations often serve as critical intermediaries. The involvement of religious and adat leaders in the negotiations reflects the importance of culturally grounded conflict resolution mechanisms, which can operate alongside or in place of formal state-led processes (McGibbon, 2018).

The use of such mediators also highlights the limitations of state-centric approaches to conflict resolution. As Lederach (1997) argues, sustainable peacebuilding requires the engagement of a broad range of stakeholders, including those who may not have formal political power but possess significant social capital. In the Papuan context, where traditional institutions remain influential, the inclusion of adat leaders in the negotiation process was crucial in building trust and ensuring the safety of the hostage.

Moreover, the use of local mediators can serve as a form of conflict containment, where the immediate crisis is managed without addressing the underlying issues. While this can prevent escalation in the short term, it may also perpetuate a cycle of violence and negotiation that fails to lead to substantive change. The challenge for both the Indonesian government and Papuan leaders is to move beyond crisis management towards a more comprehensive and inclusive dialogue that addresses the root causes of the conflict.

Conclusion: Lessons and Implications for Conflict Resolution

The release of Philip Mehrtens is a significant event in the ongoing conflict in Papua, but it is unlikely to herald a major shift in the broader dynamics of the struggle. The use of humanitarian and familial approaches in the negotiation process demonstrates the potential of non-coercive strategies in resolving immediate crises, but it also highlights the limitations of such approaches in addressing the deeper issues at stake.

For the Indonesian government, the challenge remains how to balance security concerns with the need for a more inclusive and responsive approach to Papuan grievances. The reliance on local mediators and indirect negotiations reflects the difficulty of engaging directly with separatist groups without undermining state sovereignty. However, without a more substantive dialogue that addresses the root causes of the conflict, such as political marginalization and economic inequality, the cycle of violence and repression is likely to continue.

For the OPM and other Papuan leaders, the challenge is to build on the momentum of the Mehrtens case to push for a broader dialogue that includes a wider range of stakeholders. While the use of humanitarian rhetoric has helped to reframe their struggle in more positive terms, the ultimate goal of self-determination remains distant. Achieving this will require not only strategic flexibility but also a willingness to engage with the complexities of the Papuan situation in a way that goes beyond the binary of independence versus integration.

In the end, the Mehrtens case serves as a reminder of the complexities and contradictions of conflict resolution in deeply divided societies. It illustrates the potential and limitations of humanitarian approaches and the need for a more holistic and context-sensitive understanding of peacebuilding in Papua and beyond.

Hadi Pradnyana
Hadi Pradnyana
Hadi Pradnyana is a researcher and lecturer at the Department of Government, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Warmadewa University, Indonesia. A master graduate of Strategic and Global Studies at Universitas Indonesia, his research focuses on international security, terrorism studies, and cybersecurity.