While I agree with the broad sentiments of this article I feel that if there is to be true dialogue on Papua's future a lot of preparation for that dialogue is necessary. It seems that at the moment there is little hope for success for such talks as many parties on both sides show an unwillingness to move away from entrenched positions that make constructive dialogue possible.
Maybe a slower process to develop trust and areas of discussion that avoid insurmountable differences could be a starting point. Australia has not been helpful in this conflict as it seems to put the whole thing in the too hard basket when it could be constructive in developing a middle path.
The pro-Independence Papuan movement has historically been splintered into many camps (mainly due to personal differences as opposed to ideological differences, not to mention the destructive violence of the OPM/TPN). This disunity makes dialogue difficult as it easy for more disgruntled groups to undermine the process. The Pro-Papuan movement has a tendency to create coalitions that are not exactly inclusive leading to sectarian and unnecessary internal conflicts. Messianic leaders have become the norm instead of the exception. Perhaps a process could develop in this camp that could bring about inclusion as opposed to designated leaders might be a beginning point to developing dialogue.
In the pro-Intergration camp there needs to be less Uber-Nationalism and more awareness of the unresolved historical trauma in Papua. It is also difficult for nations like the NKRI considering there own historical stuggles against imperialism to cede administative control to the provinces especially in Papua/West Papua. Possibly a new spirit of openness is necessary, less suspicious of external state actors and a willingness to rectify past grievances.
There are a number of threshhold issues that could kickstart a dialogue, admittedly after the above problems are addressed. For example, addressing development and positive discrimination, or military impunity. A developing dialogue that avoids intractable positions may lead to developing trust that deconstucts ideological difference.

Indonesia will only accept a situation in which the final, irreversible and internationally-acknowledged integration of Papua into Indonesian motherland remained unquestioned and undisturbed. Amounts of autonomy given to the provinces (especially Papua) are already quite high.

As for "dialogue with separatists", the very idea proved to be impractical due to the extremely fragmented nature of this group of people. This idea was only put forward as some sort of inclusive charity from new democratic Indonesian government, besides these separatists are so impotent there is really no need to take them too seriously.

In reference to the last post 'quod erat demonstrandum'.