Either way, Steven, Lincoln did the right thing and Chamberlain dithered, I'm sure you would agree. My point was that we often have very difficult dilemmas, between two or more painful alternatives. Perhaps you are right, humans are basically selfish and don't give a toss about other people far away or 'different' in some way.

But to get back to the topic, Kosovo, is a stretch of territory with 90 % Albanian Kosovars, who were barred from public positions and from speaking their own language at the university in Pristina, among other injustices. Should they have the right to choose like, say, the Irish, to get out from under the oppression of others ? Yes, the US probably has some ulterior motive for supporting their democratic rights (just as the Germans may have given support to the leaders of the Easter Uprising), but that really is neither here nor there: should they have the right to choose ?

Yes, obviously, if the Kosovars have that right, so too should the Uighurs in 'Xinjiang', the Tibetans, the Taiwanese, the Catalans, the Basques and the West Papuans.

Certainly, submission and independence should not be the only alternatives for dominated populations: one way that imperial or dominating powers can head off a 'yes' vote for independence would be to treat people properly, not to flood their territory with their nationals, not to tear down their cities or treat their territory as if it were an occupied country, not to drive them into the mountains and destroy their houses and farms.

The suffering of others should not be set against our own comfort and safety, as if there is some sort of trade-off. Eventually, and the Lincoln and Chamberlain examples demonstrate, we have to stand up for the same rights for others as we expect for ourselves.

Joe Lane

Joe

Do I personally think the Uighars and Tibetans should be allowed to break away from Chinese rule?

Yep.

Do I think the Kurds should be rid of the Turks, Iranians and Iraqis?

Absolutely.

Do I think the the West Papuans should gain their independence from the Javanese Empire aka Indonesia?

Certainly.

Now what do you suggest I do about it?

What do you suggest the Australian Government do about it?

Do you honestly believe there is ANYTHING effectual the Australian Government CAN do about these issues?

And if we cannot do something EFFECTIVE then what is the point of doing anything

No Steven,
the US forms it's Indonesia policy on the advice of the US Indonesia Society (formed by Freeport, Bechtel, Exxon, etc.) and fear.

The concept of Indonesia being important as a 'Muslim' country is based on the silly concept that other Islamic nations will be so impressed that they be more favourably disposed towards US diplomacy. But the truth is that it only demonstrates that they too can extort US support for colonial and other abuses in their regions.

"Could be a useful ally in containing China" as a rival, again this plays on fear rather than rational judgement.

I don't disagree that these are, among arguments which the USINDO.org and it's predecessors have used to manipulate US policy; I only point out that it's not actually been in the US or our interest for the US to have been funding the Indonesian military since 1949. And I point out that various US politicians including a majority of Congress in 2005 have decided that it was in the best interest of the US to end the colonisation of West Papua, a process which needs admission of the colonisation as the first step. The bill five years ago and the letter last week were not gestures but were US support for ending the colonisation.

It is Australia which will benefit more from the decolonization of West Papua, it is also Australia and PNG who fear Indonesia most. PNG for good reason, Australia less so because Indonesia is not currently a real security threat. Neither boat people nor the TNI can over-run the ADF but Indonesia is building military capacity with benefit of colonial mining including in West Papua. It is better to bring the rule of International law to bear while it can still reset national boundaries rather than trying to bargain with a bully - appeasement was not good for Chamberlain and is not a good strategy for us.

Steven your last comment is to the point, and is the SAME illusion which has driven Australian Indonesian policies ever since 1962.

Australian politicians in 1962 and 1975 believed we were powerless, but they were mistaken. The simple truth is that the 1975 invasion moved East Timor's oil from control of Portugal Oil to Conoco Philips, and the 1963 occupation moved West Papua's mineral wealth from the newly elected New Guinea Council to Freeport's friend General Suharto (under Sukarno at time).

IF Australia had protested at the UN Assembly in 1962 it would have revealed that the US drafted deal was illegal, and almost certainly President Kennedy would have discovered that his adviser McGeorge Bundy had family vested interest in his advice about West Papua.

VERY often there is simple MONEY behind international affairs, and if we expose the nature of the Indonesian claims on Papua and East Timor we would have world / UN support for the decolonization of Papua as well as East Timor. Indonesia could no doubt get a deal similar to it's East Timor deal for the UN to pretend that East Timor was not a Indonesian colony; it would be a shame if Jakarta had to re-pay the Papuans for the $billions which have been looted despite Indonesia's agreement in 1960 (UN resolution 1514) that colonisation (alien subordination) is morally and internationally unacceptable.